s 

.S77 i 



la^Y 



a.,u 





*; 




^^CU^-^Yn 



OVERLOOKED PAGES 



or 



REAPER HISTORY 



Chicago, Illinois, 1897 



ll vl > -^^ ( -• ,1 ,1 ii 



REAPING MACHINE 



m _b 







I. M^ 



I "% 



1 



l\ 



PREFACE. 



CHIS book is a republication of three pamphlets, printed as 
their respective title pages show. While the name of the 
writer is not given therein, it is known that they were from the 
pen of Edward Stabler, of Sandy Springs, Md., Postmaster of 
that place from Jackson's time until his death, a few years 
since. They were given by Mr. Stabler to one of his particular 
friends, Mr. R. D. 0. Smith, then and now a prominent patent 
lawyer. Mr. Stabler, he informs us, was a man of great skill 
as a mechanic, and was particularly noted for his ability as a 
die sinker— long considered to be the best in the United States. 
He made many government seals. The seal of the Smithsonian 
Institution is exceptionally fine. He was also a famous rifle 
shot, but wasted no powder on small game; buffalo and bear 
hunting being his recreation until the time of his death, which 
occurred about ten years ago. That he was a man of ability 
is shown by the review which follows. 

This republication is undertaken in order to preserve the 
historical facts contained (with which we have long been 
familiar ) as the single copy of each, now before us, is thought 

to be the only one in existence. 

J. Russell Parsons. 

Lewis Miller. 

John F. Steward. 

Chicago, Illinois, February, 1897. 



A BRIEF NARRATIVE 



OF THE 



INVENTION 



OF 



Reaping Machines; 

AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE 

CLAIMS FOR PRIORITY OF INVENTION: 

BY A MARYLAND FARMER AND MACHINIST. 



ALSO A SHORT APPENDIX, 



CONSISTING OF 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS, 



AS TO THE 



Operation and Success of Reaping Machines 

IN THE YEARS 1851, 1852 and 1853. 



BALTIMORE: 
FROM THE PRESS OF MILLS & COX, 

(OFFICE OF THE "AMERICAN FARMER,") 

No. 128 Baltimore Street. 

1854:. 

Reprinted by the. W. B. CONKEY COMPANY 
1897. 



6irr 

MRS. WOODROW WILSOH 
NOV. 25, 1939 



'577 



A BRIEF NARRATIVE 

OF THE 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES, 

AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS FOR PRIORITY OF INVENTION. 



The object aimed at in this examination, is to ascertain as far as relia- 
ble evidence within reach will establish the fact — and before the evidence 
maybe lost — to whom belongs the credit of first rendering the Reap- 
ing and Mowing Machine a practical and available implement to the 
Ameiican farmer; not who theoretically i)iveiited a machine for the pur- 
pose, that may have worked an hour only, and very imperfectly for 
that short period, and was then laid aside; but who rendered it an 
operating and efficient machine that was proved by successive years 
in the harvest field, capable of doing its work, and doing it well; better 
than either the scythe or cradle. 

The object is not to detract from the merits fairly claimed by any 
inventor; but it is to examine into some of the rival claims, furnish 
the evidence that has satisfied our own minds, and leave it for others 
to judge for themselves. We would not intentionally deprive an 
inventor of his often dearly bought and hard-earned fame — the crea- 
tion of his own genius — for it is more prized than even fine gold by 
many. But it is equally just that merit should be acknowledged, and 
the meed of praise awarded, where it is honestly and fairly due; and 
to this end, we propose aiid intend to examine into the evidence 
closely and critically. It may also be right to remark that we have 
no private or pecuniary interest whatever, in these, or any other patent 
claims. 

As to the theoretical portion of the business, the enquiry might be 
greatly extended; indeed for past centuries, as we have imperfect 
accounts of Reaping Machines being used by the Romans. If the 
ancients were successful in making a practical implement for Reaping, 
by horse, or ox power, as some ancient writers assert, we certainly 
have no correct and reliable account of a machine that would be con- 
sidered efficient or useful at the present day; a machine to save or tear 
off the heads only — as described by Pliny and Palladius — would more 
properly be termed a gathering machine, and not at all suited to the 
wants and habits of modern farmers. 

It was not until near the close of the past, and within the present 
century, so far as we can learn, that the subject again claimed much 
attention of the inventive talent of either this, or foreign countries. 

3 



4 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

Of some half a dozen or more attempts made in Great Britain, and 
recorded in Loudon's Encyclopedia of Agriculture, the Edinburg 
Encyclopedia, and other similar works, all, or nearly all, relied either 
upon scythes or cutters, with a rotary motion, or vibrating shears. 
And although there was "go ahead " about them in one sense of the 
term, as it was intended for the " cart to go before the horse," none of 
them appeared to have gained, or certainly not long retained, the con- 
fidence of the farmers; for at the exhibition of the "World's Fair in 
London," the whole Kingdom could not raise a Reaping Machine; — a 
practical implement which was considered worth using and exhibiting. 

That the idea was obsolete there, and had been unsuccessful, is 
clearly proved by the fact that the English journals and writers of that 
period, without a single exception, spoke of the American Reapers — 
after the trials! — as "completely successful"— "taking every one by 
surprise " — " their reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists" 
— " few subjects have created a greater sensation in the agricultural 
world than the recent introduction into the country of the reaping 
machines" — the " curiosity of the crowd was irrepressible to witness 
such a novelty, even to stopping the machine, and trampling the grain 
under foot," &c., &c. — Much more and similar evidence is at hand; but 
better need not be produced to prove the entire failure of reaping 
machines in Great Britain, as late as 1851. We would also refer the 
curious to Rees' Cyclopedia, for a very brief account of what had been 
effected; — a few paragraphs only are written on reaping machines, but 
several pages are compiled as to the use of the scythe, sickle or reap 
hook, and reaping y^^r/'. The Doctor refers to Plunknett's Machine by 
name, as being "somewhat on a new principle, the horse drawing the 
machine instead of pushing it forward as was the old mode of applying 
the power." The machine is fully represented in the Farmers' Dic- 
tionary; and he winds up the account as follows: "But the success 
with which they have been attended, has hitherto been far from com- 
plete;" again, " Other machines of this kind have still more lately been 
invented by other persons [meaning of course his own countrymen] 
but without answering the purpose in that full and complete manner 
which is necessary in this sort of work." 

The Doctor undertakes to tell us xvhat is wa?}icd, but fails entirely 
to inform his readers hozv to do it. That John Bull had not done it is 
clearly established ; but Brother Jonathan, the " Live Yankee," as John 
calls his cousin, has solved the problem; and the solution is so simple, 
when you know how to do it! that it is marvelously strange no one for 
centuries had before struck upon the right key. 

Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P. and F. R. S. — the chief manager of the 
London Exhibition — admits the failure, though apparently reluctantly; 
but the source of his information, in writing about the American 
machines was interested and defective; and when he again writes on 
this subject he will be better informed. He says: " At the opening of 
this century it was thought that a successful reaping machine had been 
invented, and a reward had been voted by Parliament to its author. 
The machine was employed here and abroad, but from its intricacy, 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 



fell into disuse. Another has been lately devised in one of our Colo- 
nies, which cuts off the heads of the corn, but leaves the straw stand- 
ing, a fatal defect in an old settled country, where the growth of corn 
is forced by the application of dung. Our farmers may well, therefore, 
have been astonished by an American implement which not only reaped 
the wheat, but performed the work with the neatness and certainty of an 
old and perfect machine. Its novelty of action reminded one of see- 
ing the first engine run on the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 
1830. Its perfection depended on its being new only in England; but 
in America the result of repeated disappointments and untired perse- 
verance, &c." 

We propose to prove, and by better evidence, and disinterested too, 
than he then had, that in 1833, near the date of " the first engine run on 
the Liverpool and Manchester railway in 1830," the American machine 
cut the "corn" just as perfectly, with equal " neatness and certainty" 
as did the " Novelty" or " Rocket " pass over the Liverpool and Man- 
chester railway. We shall again recur to English authority. John Bull 
is a right lionest and clever old gentleman in the main; but he is rather 
prone to claim what he has no title for — inventions, as well as territory. 
We are willing to give him what he can show a clear deed for, but no 
more. He beat us by one year only in the Locomotive; but we fairly 
beat him eighteen or twenty in the Reaping Machine; and yet some 
of his writers contend to this day that we '^pirated'' from Bell and 
other English inventors all we know! 

The excitement and sensation thus produced by the American 
Reapers, caused renewed efforts on the part of English inventors; 
some who had near a quarter of a century previously, been endeavor- 
ing to effect this " great desideratum," to use an English editorial; and 
the most conspicuous of these was one invented by the Rev. Patrick 
Bell, of Scotland. Of the half a score or more and previous inventors 
in Great Britain — Boyce, Plunknett, Gladstone of Castle Douglass, 
Salmon of Waburn, Smith of Deanston in Perthshire, &c., &c. — none 
were waked up from their Rip Van Winkle slumbers; or if they were, 
the world is not advised of it. They all used revolving scythes, revolv- 
ing cutters, or shears instead. Several trials were made with Bell's in 
1828 or i82g; and a very full and minute description with plates, was 
published some 24 or 25 years ago, and may be found in Loudon's 
Encyclopedia of Agriculture. 

It was, however, too complicated, too cumbersome and expensive, 
performed too little service, and required too much tinkering and 
repairs to be viewed as a practical and available implement. — The 
English farmer found the sickle or reap hook preferable, for it was 
every where resorted to. — The cutting apparatus of Bell's consisted of 
shears, one half stationary, the other vibrating, and turning on the 
bolt that confined them to the iron bar which extends across the front 
of the frame. The vibrating motion was given by connecting the back 
end of one shear to a bar — making the bolt the fulcrum — and which 
was attached to a crank, revolving by gear to the driving wheels. 

A reel was used to gather the grain to the shears, and adjustable, 



6 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

back and forth, and higher or lower, to suit the height of the grain. A 
revolving apron delivered the grain in a continuous swath; and the 
team was attached to the rear of the machine, pushing it through the 
grain. 

We have been more minute in the description of Bell's machine, 
because it may have been the foundation of some of the early, and 
nearly simultaneous attempts made in this country. In fact it does 
not admit of doubt that several were nearly identical with Bell's in the 
use of the shears and reel, though with much more simple gearing, and 
in the general arrangement. Whether they were original inventions, 
cannot be ascertained. In this country, from i8oo to 1833 out of 
some 1 5 or 20 patents granted for " cutting grain " and " cutting grass," 
only four appear to have been " restored "; i. e. technically speaking, 
"not restored" in models and drawings after the burning of the Pat- 
ent Ofifice in 1836. Many, if not most of them, were probably improve- 
ments in the grain cradle, and mowing scythe: though the names are 
preserved, there is no record to show for what particulars the patents 
were granted. There can be no doubt however, that the inventors 
considered them valueless, as they were " not restored," though Con- 
gress voted large sums to replace the burnt models and drawings, 
without any expense to the parties. Of those restored James Ten 
Eyck's patent is dated 1825. Wm. Manning's in 1831, Wm. & Thos. 
Schnebly's in 1833, and Obed Hussey's also in 1833. 

James Ten Kyck used an open reel; not only to gather the grain, 
but his cutters or shears, were attached to, and revolved with the reel; — 
very much, if not exactly on the principle of shearing cloth. 

Wm; Manning used another form of cutters, and quite different 
from James Ten Eyck's — he likewise used fingers or teeth to support 
the grain during the action of the horizontal cutters. 

W' m. & Thos. Schnebly of Maryland, also used the reel, with shears 
as cutters, very similar to Bell's. 

Abr'm Randall or Rundell, of N. Y. (for the name is spelled both 
ways), was another of the early inventors. His patent of 1835 is not 
restored, though it is stated his machine was experimented with as 
early as 1833 or 1834. He also used the reel, and his cutters, it is said, 
were similar to Bell's — using shears. 

T. D. Burrall, of N. Y. was also one of the early inventors, about' 
1832 or 1833, but we believe professedly after Bell's, so far as to use a 
reel and shears. 

None of these machines however, Hussey's excepted, were success- 
ful, or were used any length of time; nor is it necessary here to refer 
particularly to other attempts, about this time, or indeed, prior to this 
period, for they were equally unsuccessful; and their inventors cannot 
claim the merit of doing a thing, that was not in fact performed — mak- 
ing an efficient and successful Reaper. We may here remark, however, 
that so far as now known, no machine like Bell's, on the shear or scis- 
sor principle, has succeeded in this country; or as we believe, is ever 
likely to succeed. We have seen a number by different inventors, and 
all have failed to give satisfaction. They may work well for a very 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 



brief period and with keen edges; but as they become dull, the shears 
are forced apart by the straw and grass — particular the latter, and the 
machine fails, as it inevitably must do, in its allotted duty: and for very 
obvious reasons. If the shear rivet or bolt is kept tight, there is too 
much friction ; if loose enough to play freely, it is too loose to cut well ; 
and lastly, it is too liable to wear at the most important pointof the whole 
machine. During the harvest of 1853 in England, every effort was 
made to uphold Bell's machine; in some cases prizes were awarded to 
it, though evidently partial; for in the face of these awards, some who 
witnessed the trials, and had used Bell's machines, laid them aside and 
purchased Hussey's. At the close of the season, as we learn from 
reliable authority, even the engineers who operated Bell's, frankly 
admitted that the American machine as exhibited by Hussey, was the 
better implement, owing to the arrangement of the guards and knives; 
Bell's required so much tinkering, that several machines were required 
to cope with one of Hussey's. At the recent harvest,(i854) the Mark 
Lane Express acknowledges that at the Royal Agricultural Societies' 
show at Lincoln, Bell's machine was "at last fairly beaten" by Hus- 
sey's, including McCormick's, and Hussey's machine received the prize 
over all others. It is just, however, to add, that far as we consider 
Bell's machine behind some of the present day, yet complex and cum- 
bersome as it was, it combined more of the essential features of success, 
than an}' Reaper that preceded it. 

We now come to 1833, the date of Hussey's patent; and to 1834, 
the date of C. H. McCormick's first patent. These were known and 
admitted by all to have been the rivals for popular favor and patron- 
age, from about the year 1844 or 1845 to the opening of the great 
Industrial Exhibition in London, in 1851. To these, therefore, the 
Enquiry will be more particularly directed. 

We must however refer back for a brief period to 183 1 ; for although 
C. H. McCormick's first patent was dated in 1834, yet when he applied 
for his extension in 1848, he alleged that hisifwc7itio?i\va.s prior to Hus- 
sey's, as he had invented a machine in 1831, two years before the date 
of O. Hussey's, and three years before the date of his own patent. The 
evidence produced {zvritte?i ^.nd prepared by C. H. McCormick and now 
on file in the Patent Office) was deemed inadmissible and informal by 
the Board, and it refused to go on with the examination either as to 
priority or validity of invention without notice to Hussey — his patent 
being called in question by McCormick — to be present when the dep- 
ositions were taken. 

Before however receiving the official notice, he was called on by 
C. H. McCormick in Baltimore, and requested to sign a paper, agreeing 
or admitting, that the testimony he had himself prepared should be con- 
sidered evidence — i. e. considered formal; alleging that it would save 
him trouble and expense in going to Virginia. This was declined by 
Hussey on the ground that he might thus unwittingly injure himself; 
he having previously applied for an extension of his own Patent. 
Neither was he then aware of the nature of this evidence; or until this 
interview, was he advised of C. H. McCormick's application for 
extension. 



8 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

Hussey was subsequently duly notified by order of the Board to be 
present at taking the depositions in Augusta County, Virginia, — the 
Board having adjourned three weeks for that purpose. 

Either just previous, or subsequent to these proceedings the case 
was referred by the Commissioner of Patents, or Board of extensions, 
to Dr. Page, one of the Examiners of the office. 

His report is as follows — 

Patent Office, ) 

"Sir: Jan. 22d, 1848. \ 

In compliance with your requisition, I have examined the patent 
of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 31st June, 1834, and found that the 
principal features embraced in said patent, viz: the cutting-knife and 
mode of operating it, the fingers to guide the grain and the revolving 
rack for gathering the grain, were not new at the time of granting said 
letters patent. 

The knife-fingers and general arrangements and operation of the 
Cutting apparatus are found in the reaping machine of O. Hussey, 
patented 31st Dec. 1833. 

The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its opera- 
tion is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 2nd 
November 1825. Respectfully submitted, 

Chas. G. Page, Examiner." 
Hon. Edmund Burke, Com'r.of Patents. 

As some have enquired, and others may enquire, why a patent 
should issue under these circumstances, we reply, that previous to 1836 
but little, if any examination was made as to priority of inventions, or 
into preceding Patents; the applicant made oath as to his invention, 
and the patent was issued as a matter of course. And as another mat- 
ter of course, if the rival interests clashed, litigation was the result: — 
the Courts and juries often decided what they little understood, and 
at times not at all, after the pleading of well fee'd lawyers: a pretty 
fair illustration of the fable of the boys and frogs: it may be fun for 
the lawyers but it is death to the hopes of many a poor patentee. We 
are however pleased to perceive a disposition manifested by the 
courts to sustain patents; even if occasionally an unjust claim is rec- 
ognized as a valid one, it is better, according to the legal and moral 
maxim, that half a dozen rogues should escape punishment for a time, 
than that one innocent person should be unjustly convicted: the rogue 
is almost certain to be caught in the end, and truth will ultimately 
triumph. 

This testimony was taken in due form at Steele's Tavern, Augusta 
County, Va., McCormick and Hussey both being present. It is too 
voluminous to copy entire, but we will refer briefly to each, having 
read them carefully, and obtained certified copies of all, from the 
Patent office. 

Dr. N. M. Hitt — testified to a reaping machine being made byC.H. 
McCormick in 1831 — it had a straight sickle blade. 

William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, brothers of 
C. H. McCormick, also testified to the making of a machine in 1831. 



INVENTION OF REAPING J.EVCHINES. 9 

Mary McCormick. — mother of C. H. McCormick; agreed in gen- 
eral with the testimony of her sons, — did not doubt but it was correct, 
" it appears familiar to me," but testified to nothing in particular. 

John Steele, Jr. — Was tavernkeeper at "Steele's Tavern" — testified 
as to the year being 1831 or 1832. In his amended testimony, admitted 
that C. H. McCormick wrote the paper describing the machine for him 
to testify to; recollects little else about the machine than the straight 
sickle edge. 

Eliza H. Steele — refused to testify, without first seeing a certificate 
previously signed by her; admitted that C. H. McCormick wrote it for 
her to sign; her testimony as to the year, depended on the building of 
a certain house, on which the workmen put 183 1. 

John McCown — was a black-smith — testified that he made the 
" straight sickle blade," and that it was " a long straight sickle " blade. 

This was most singular testimony to found a claim of priority of 
invention on, and by which to invalidate another man's patent. There 
was discrepancy in the evidence as to the year of the invention; also 
whether the machine was intended for one or two horses; how the 
" fingers" were arranged, and whether of ivood or iro7i, above or below, 
the " straight sickle blade." Two of the brothers — one at least who 
helped to make, if not also to invent this machine — testified that the 
plan or arrangement of the machine here sworn to, was changed in 
1840, 1841, 1842, or 1843, they did not know which; from g to 12 years 
afterwards! 

John McCown swears positively that he helped to build the machine, 
so far at least as to forge "a long straight sickle;" but neither he, or a 
single one of the seven sworn witnesses, ''ladies znd gentlemen," testify 
that the machine ever worked a single hour, or cut as much grain of 
any kind as would make a single sheaf !* 

In a long communication to Com'r. Burke in 1848, together with a 
list of sales and profits, C. H. McCormick states, and on oath, that 
he had exhibited his machine in 1840 or 1841 to a considerable 
number of farmers and very satisfactorily, though but one person could 
be induced to purchase — a Mr, John Smith we believe — and that up to 
1842, eleve?i years after the alleged invention, he had sold but two 
machines, and one of them conditionally. Again, in the same paper he 
states, " but the}' failed to operate well," and had to be altered: — in 
other words they would not work at all. Amongst others, he had 

* The readinpf of this testimony strongly reminds us of an anecdote related at 
the hustings in Va. by that talented but eccentric character, John Randolph, of Roa- 
noake, in a political canvass with an opponent, who promised what he would do for his 
constituents, if elected. Randolph told him he was like one of h s overseers, a plaus- 
ible fellow, but on whom little reliance was to be placed — and who, desiring to show 
what fine crops he had raised, exhibited a better tally board than the crop could jus- 
tify. "I told him," said Randolph, "this is very good tally, John, but where's the 
corn? and I tell the gentleman, I don't want to see his tally, but the corn — the evi- 
dence of what he ever did to entitle him to a seat in Congress." The effect was 
electric, and the hustings rang with plaudits. Now we would say to C. H. McCor- 
mick, this is very good tally John, but where's the Corn? The evidence that the 
machine ever cut a single acre of grain. 



10 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

applied to " the farmer of Virginia, Mr. Sampson," for a certificate as 
to the satisfactory working of the machine, but it was declined. 

We are not surprized at this; for some 35 years ago we were per- 
sonally acquainted with this " farmer «of Virginia," and also with his 
mode of farming; and know that a machine of any kind to please him 
?n7ist zuork and must also work " well." Richard Sampson was at that 
early day in this "age of progress," one of the best and most 
practical farmers in the " Old Dominion," and was not a man to be 
"caught napping," either at home or abroad. 

The record shows that " on March, 29, 1848, the Board met agreea- 
bly to adjournment — Present James Buchanan, Sec'y of State, Edmund 
Burke, Commissioner of Patents, and R. H. Gillet, Solicitor of the 
Treasury, — and having examined the evidence adduced in the case, 
decide that said patent ought not to be extended." 
Signed, 

James Buchanan, Sec'y State. 
Edmund Burke, Commiss'r. Pat's. 
R. H. GiLLETT, Solicitor Treas'y. 

This evidence, taken in due form, and certified to by the magis- 
trates in Augusta and Rockbridge Counties, Va., was 7iot ruled out as 
informal, as we have seen it stated: but it was certainly laid before 
the Board; and was doubtless satisfactory both as to priority of inven- 
tion; — and in connexion with Dr. Page's report, conclusive, "that said 
patent ought not to be extended." 

VVe have also seen it stated that Hussey appeared before the Board 
of Extensions " to contest the extension of McCormick's patent." 

We think injustice — and no doubt unintentionally — is here done to 
Hussey, Until the order of the Board was passed to afford him the 
opportunity to defend his rights, assailed without his knowledge, he 
was not aware of C. H. McCormick's application. As a matter of 
course he then attended, but stated in writing, and which is now on 
file, " I had no intention, neither had I any desire to place any obstacle 
in the way of the extension of C. H. McCormick's patent. But the 
course he has taken before your Board and before Congress, has com- 
pelled me to act in self defense." 

Not so with C. H. McCormick; for when his claims were rejected 
by the Board of Extensions, — and most justly, as we think, in accord- 
ance with the evidence — he petitioned Congress against Htisseys extension: 
and to this most ungenerous, illiberal and unfair course, and of which 
Hussey was for years totally ignorant, C. H. McCormick may justly 
attribute this Enquiry; — but for this, it had never been written. Our 
object is not to injure C. H, McCormick; but it is that justice may be 
done to another, whose interests and rights he was the first to assail. 

If the foregoing testimony is not conclusive, as regards priority of 
invention in 183 1 against C. H. McCormick, we think the evidence 
which follows — and which no one will pretend to call in question, or 
doubt — establishes the fact that the machine of 1831 was good for 
nothing, — not even half invented; and that the machine of 1841, was 
not much more perfect. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 11 

On page 231 of the Reports of Juries for the Great London Exhibi- 
tion, and now in the Library of Congress, we find the following: 

" It seems right," says Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., " to put on record 
Mr. McCormick's own account of his progress, or some extracts at least, 
from a statement written by him, at my request." — [Pusey.] 

" My father was a farmer in the county of Rockbridge, State of \' ir- 
ginia, United States. He made an experiment in cutting grain in the 
year 1816, bya number of cylinders standing perpendicularly. Another 
experiment of the same kind was made by my father in the harvest of 
1831, which satisfied my father to abandon it. Thereupon my attention 
was directed to the subject, and the same harvest I invented and put in 
operation in cutting late oats on the farm of John Steele, adjoining my 
father's, those parts of my present Reaper called the platform, for 
receiving the corn, a straight blade taking effect on the corn, sup- 
ported by stationary fingers over the edge, and a reel to gather the 
corn; which last, however, I found had been used belore, though not 
in the same combination. 

" Although these parts constituted the foundation of the present 
machine, I found in practice innumerable difficulties, being limited 
also to a few weeks each year, during the harvest, for experimenting, 
so that my first patent for the Reaper was granted in June, 1834. 

" During this interval, I was ofic?i advised by )ny father a?id family to 
abandon it, and pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, lie 
havi7\g give7i 7ne a farm. [Italicised by C. H. McC] 

" No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they were 
not of much practical value until the improvements of my second pat- 
ent in 1845. 

" These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the sickle 
teeth alternately — the improved form of the fingers to hold up the 
corn, &c. — an iron case to preserve the sickles from clogging — and 
a better mode of separating the standing corn to be cut. Up to this 
period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from my efforts. 
The sale has since steadily increased, and is now more than a thousand 
yearly."* 

It would be just as conclusive and reasonable for iho. father of C. H. 
McCormick to claim at this day priority of invention for his Reaper 
invented in 1S16, "by a number of cylinders standing perpendicularly;" 

*"The sale has since steadily ir.creased, and is now more than a thousand 
yearly." This was written in 185.1, and by a little calculation, we can readily esti- 
mate the " yearly " profits. In the Circuit Court of the United States, at Albany, in 
the suit brought by C. H. McCormick against Seymour & Morgan, in 1850, for an 
alleged infringement of patent, it was proved on the oath of O. H. Dormon, his 
partner, and also on the oath of H. A. Blakesley, their clerk, that these Reapers only 
cost ^86 to $37 to manufacture. By the same evidence, the sales averaged from $110 
to $120 each machine; leaving a clear profit of at least $73. C. H. McCormick first 
received 2l pate7it fee of $80 on each machine, then t/vee-fozirths of the remainder in 
the division of profits. It would thus appear, if these figures are correct — and they 
are all sworn to — that C. H. McCormick realized full fifty thousand dollars clear 
profit annually, with a margin of eight to ten thousand dollars for commissions an<J 
bad debts in addition. 



12 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

or for "the invention made by my father in the harvest of 1831, which 
satisfied my father to abandon it." This authority, high and official as 
all must admit it to be, [and italicised too, by the writer for a particu- 
lar object,] clearly proves that the invention of 1831 was an abortion; 
for if the principle was effective to cut one acre of grain properly, any 
man of common sense knows that it was equally so to cut one thousand 
acres; but so complete was the failure that," During this interval" — 
between 1831 and 1834 — '' I tvas oftcji advised by 7ny fatJier and family to 
abandoji it, a?id pursue my regular business, as likely to be more profitable, 
he having given me a farm'' 

Again, " No machines were sold until 1840, and I may say that they 
were not of much practical value until the improvements of my sec- 
ond patent in 1845." What these improvements were we are also in- 
formed: "These improvements consist in reversing the angle of the 
sickle teeth alternately, the improved form of the fingers to hold up 
the corn, &c. — an iron case to preserve the sickle from clogging, &c. — 
up to this period nothing but loss of time and money resulted from 
my efforts." 

Nor is it at all surprising; for until improvements were added, in- 
vented and long in successful operation by others, the machine would 
not work, and consequently no one would buy. 

This letter is the most perfect and complete estopper to priority 
of invention — not only for 1831, but to 1841 inclusive, if not to 1845, 
that could be penned. His pc7i cuts a " cleaner swath," as we farmers 
say, than ever did his Reaper; and this letter at least is certainly C. H. 
McCormick's own " invention," which no one else can lay any claim 
to. Yet strange as it may appear, he contended before the Board of 
Extensions in order to invalidate Hussey's Patent, that he invented a 
Reaping Machine nine years before! So has perpetual motion been 
invented a hundred times — in the estimation of the projectors; and by 
his own showing, and on oath, he sold but two machines up to 1842 — 
one of them conditionally sold — being eleven years after the alleged 
invention, and even they had to be re-invented to make them work, or 
use the previous inventions of others. 

In this letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., C. H. McCormick admits 
that the Reel " had been used before," yet he includes it in his patent 
of 1834. — Both the specifications and drawings in the Patent Office, 
conclusively establish the fact that James Ten Eyck patented \\\e reel 
or "revolving rack," or "revolving frame" in 1825, used not only to 
gather the. grain as all such devices are used, but by the knives attached 
to it, also intended to eiit it off. 

Could it be contended that because rockers are attached to a chair, 
it is no longer a chair, or useful as a seat? Even " Mary McCormick 
the mother of Cyrus," and " PLliza H. Steele, of Steele's Tavern, Va." 
— nay every woman and child in the country would tell you that it was 
then a rocking chair, — just as much a seat as ever — and Ten Eyck's was 
|L Reel to all intents and purposes, but also a cutting reel. It does not 
require the mechanical tact and skill of Professor Page to discover 
that, "the revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its oper- 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 13 

ation is similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 
November 2d, 1825." It is certain the reel was no "novelty," either 
in 1831, or 1834 when patented by C. H. McCormick; he tells us so 
himself; and it is most likely the Father of C. H. McCormick also used 
a reel for his " cylinders standing perpendicularly, in 1816," and also 
for his other plan in 1831, and "which satisfied my father to abandon 
it." And it is equally probable that most of the "fathers "and the 
.•^ons, who invented Reapers for a hundred years preceding the date of 
Hussey's patent, used reels; — indeed the reel seemed to be considered 
a Sine qua non by many; most of the inventors we have any clear ac- 
count of, resorted to the reel. 

Hussey also used the reel in 1833, — of course the reel and seat in 
combination — but only for a short period, as it was found quite unnec- 
essary, — an actual incumbrance with his cutting apparatus, and soon 
laid it aside. 

We will now examine another invention patented by C. H. McCor- 
mick, in 1847. ^s \\cvQ assert and challenge a denial, that from 12 to 
14 years after the alleged invention of a Reaper by C. H. McCormick 
in 1831, and from 9 to 12 years after the date of his patent in 1834 his 
raker walked hy the side of his machine, while Hussey's raker rode on 
the machine as they ahvays had dojie since his first machine that cut the 
grain like " a thing of life " in Hamilton county, Ohio, in 1833. Yet, 
in 1847, C. H. McCormick takes out a patent for the raker s scat! this 
zvas a " novelty " and well worth a patent! 

In two trials of reaping machines by Hussey and McCormick in 
the same fields in Virginia, in 1843, one at Hutchinson's, and the other 
on the plantation of the late Senator Roane, at Tree Hill, near Rich- 
mond, McCormick's raker zvalked by the side of the machine, while 
Hussey's rode on the machine, in the same manner as he did just 
exactly ten years before. 

We have'three letters from the late Hon. Wm. H. Roane referring 
to these trials, and ordering a machine from Hussey, after witnessing 
the operation of both. Two of the letters he desired might not be 
published; but says in one of them, "I have no objection to your 
stating publicly that a member oi the committee who made the report 
last summer at Hutchinsoris, which was published a few days there- 
after, witnessed a fuller and fairer trial between the two machines, and 
has in consequence ordered one of yours. * * * What I have said 

above of , is intended only for your eye confidentially, to show you 

in part the character and probable motives of the opposition your 
Reaper has met. Let what I say be private, as I have a great objec- 
tion to going into the newspapers. Should you ever want it, you can 
have from me the strongest public testimonial of my good opinion of 
your machine." 

The third letter, giving this " testimonial " was published in the 
American Farmer, in January, 1844. As the Raker's Seat — the main 
feature of C. H. McCormick's patent of 1847, comes fairly within the 
scope of this Enquiry as to priority of invention, we re-publish Sen- 
ator Roane's letter and also furnish other testimony on the subject. 



14 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

To the Editor of the Amcricayi Farmer. 

As the question of zvhich is the best Reaping Machine is of no little 
importance to wheat growers, it is highly necessary that they be rightly 
informed of every fact which tends to decide the question. — The trial 
which forms the subject of the following correspondence was looked 
forward to wnth great interest by farmers; such was the partial charac- 
ter of the trial, and the general terms of the committee's report, in 
which the particulars that led to the result were omitted, it cannot ap- 
pear strange that the public should be in some degree misled with 
regard to the relative merits of the two machines. If my own inter- 
est was alone concerned, I would not thus far trespass on your col- 
umns, but you will doubtless agree with me, that it is due to wheat 
growers throughout the country that the views expressed by Mr. 
Roane, in connection with the committee's report, should be published 
as extensively as the report itself ; I therefore solicit the insertion of 
the following correspondence in your paper. 

Very respectfully, Obed Hussey, 

Baltimore, January i8th, 1844. 
To the Hon. \Vm. H. Roane: 

Dear Sir, — You will remember that a trial took place on the farm 
of Mr. Hutchinson near Richmond, Va., in July last, between my 
reaping machine and Mr. McCormick's, at which trial you were one of 
a committee which gave the preference to Mr. McCormick's machine. 

You will also recollect that the machine which I used at that time 
was a small one, and quite different from that which I used in your 
field a few days afterwards, in a second trial between Mr. McCormick 
and myself. 

As the first trial was made under circumstances unfavorable to my- 
self, ow'ing to the difficulties which prevented me from gettmg my 
best machine to the field on that day, and other impediments inci- 
dental to a stranger unprovided with a team, &c., and as no report was 
made of the second trial, you will oblige me by informing me what 
your impressions were after witnessing the second trial. 

I would very gladly embrace the opportunity which the next har- 
vest will afford of following up my experiments in wheat cutting in 
Virginia, but the new field opened to me in the great west for cutting 
hemp, in which I was so successful last September, as will appear by 
the Louisville Journal of that date, will claim my particular attention 
this year. I mention this to you lest it might appear that I had aban- 
doned the field in Virginia by my non-appearance there in the next 
harvest. 

Very respectfully, yours, &c., Obed Hussey. 

Tree Hill, January 23d, 1844. 

Dear Sir, — I received a few days ago your letter of the 17th inst., 

on the subject of your reaping machine; you call my recollection to C 

trial between it and Mr. McCormick's reaper at Mr. Hutchinson's in 

July last, on which occasion I " was one of a committee which gave 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 15 

the preference to Mr. McCormick's machine;" you also advert to a 
trial between these rival machines a few days subsequent, at this place, 
and request to know my impressions after this second trial. I presume 
from the fact of my having ordered one of your reapers for the ensu- 
ing harvest, that it is your purpose to publish this statement. Averse 
as 1 am to having my name in print on tins, or any other occasion, I 
cannot with propriety decline a response to your inquiry, I had never 
seen or formed an idea of a reaping machine until I went to Hutchin- 
son's — I was surprised and delighted with the performance of each of 
them, and fully resolved to own one of them by the wr,r/ harvest, but 
their performance that day left me in a state of doubt which I should 
select. — The report spoke in terms of high praise of each machine, and 
I consented to its award that 07i the zvhole Mr. McCormick's was prefer- 
able, merely because being the cheapest and requiring but two horses, 
it would best suit the majority of our farmers, who make small crops 
of wheat on zvcak land — for I doubted its capacity in heavy grain 
After this Report was made I heard your complaint that you did not 
have a fair trial, because being unable to bring into the field your large 
improved Reaper, which was up the River, you were compelled to 
comply with your e7igageme7it for the day, with a small and inferior 
machine, drawn by an indifferent and untutored team. Mr. Hutchin- 
son's wheat was badly rusted, and therefore light. I had ready for 
the scythe, a low ground field of heavy and well matured grain: partly 
to expedite my harvest work, and partly to renew the trial, that I might 
solve my doubts as to the merits of these machines, I succeeded in 
engaging them to be at Tree Hill on a named day — they both came 
agreeable to appointment, Mr. McCormick bringing the machine he 
used at Hutchinson's, and you bringing the one you could not on that 
occasion bring down the river. The day was fine; and both machines 
did their best, and had a very fair trial. My doubts were fully re- 
moved, and my mind convinced that for the heavy wheat we raise on 
our river low grounds, rich bottoms, &c., yo74r machine is superior to 
Mr. McCormick's, of which I still thiyik highly — I accordingly ordered 
one of yours to be made for the approaching harvest. 

I wish you all possible success in cutting hemp in the " Great 
West." — It must be very desirable to cut that valuable plant instead of 
pulling it up by the roots, and I cannot doubt that your reaper has 
ample potver for the process 

Most respectfully, yours, &c., W. H. Roane. 

Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore. 

We are not advised at what precise period subsequent to 1843 ^"^i 
previous to 1847, (when C. H. McCormick patented the raker's seat) 
that he changed the arrangement of his wheels, &c., so as to admit a 
seat for his raker without "tipping up the machine" as was unavoida- 
ble previously. From evidence deemed fully reliable, he was not the 
first even on his own machine, to provide a seat for the raker, " and all 
take a ride." It is laborious enough to test fully the endurance of the 
most powerful and muscular man, to ride and rake; but to walk and 



16 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

rake is even more barbarous than the old time ball and chain to the leg 
of the felon. The considerate and feeling farmer would certainly 
"wait for the wagon" to be better fixed before thus undertaking to 
reap his grain fields if himself or his hands had to ride in this sort 
of style. 

We have a letter from Isaac Irvine Hite, Esq. now of Clarke 
County, Va., which throws some light on the subject; he says, (itali- 
cised by the writer:) 

"In 1842 my father, by my request purchased for me of C. H. 
McCormick and Father, a reaper at ^i 10, which was drawn by two 
horses, and it was raked off to the right hand side by a 7nan on foot. 
The father of C. H McCormick stated to me at the commencement 
of that harvest, that it had been nine years since tJiey had first operated 
with it, in pretty much the form it was then constructed. On a recent 
visit to Messrs. McCormick, who then resided on the line between 
Augusta and Rockbridge Counties in this State, the old gentleman 
stated to me that he had been at odd times at work on the reaper for 
many years; and either he or his son stated to me that C, H. McCor- 
mick had been improving, cha?tgi?ig ox i?n'enting vsly'ious parts until they 
had (as they thought) perfected the machine. * * * I disliked the 
labor imposed on the hand zvJio had to walk attd remove the wheat from a 
platform seven feet in width, and urged Messrs McCormick to attach 
another contrivance so as to enable the raker to ride and perform his 
arduous task; the old gentleman contended that that could never be 
accomplished, butthata self-operating appendage could be constructed 
to remove the grain, but that would be uncertain, and entirely unrelia- 
ble. During my visit, he pointed out to me one or more fixtures they 
had tried for the raker to ride on. I think one was on one wheel, and 
the other on two. 

I yet contended that it could be accomplished; if by no other 
means, by changing the construction of the machine, and remarked to 
him, if I were a mechanic, and understood the construction of the 
machine well enough to venture to alter its parts, I was certain I could 
so arrange it, and requested him to urge his son to make the effort; he 
replied that it would be useless; that they had tried every imaginable 
way or plan before placing the machine before the public, and that 
they regarded it as an impossibility, successfully, and properly, in any 
other way than on foot, and said it was necessary for the heads to be 
brought round to the right, in which I fully agreed; but contended 
it could be done while the raker was riding or standing in an erect 
position. 

After this unsatisfactory interview I returned home, and at the close 
of the next wheat harvest I had a small carriage, about 3 feet by 35^ 
feet, constructed on two wheels, ^nd connected underneath the plat- 
form, by means of shafts to the back part of the head of the machine; 
this during the cutting of my oat crop answered every purpose, so far 
as the raker was concerned, but theie was a difficulty in turning. C. 
H. McCormick came to see this combination sometime during the 
year, and condemned it in toto. But by the next harvest I had it so 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 17 

constructed, as to be drawn by an iron bar so shaped, appended and 
supported on the underneath part of the carriage, as to admit of the 
machine turning in any direction, and the carriage would follow just 
as the two hind wheels of a wagon do; the carriage had a seat behind, ' 
and a thick deep cushion in front, for the raker to press his knees 
against while removing the grain from the platform to his right hand, 
which he was enabled to do with apparent ease with a rake of peculiar 
shape; — (it cannot be done with a rake of ordinary shape.) 

The working of the first carriage was witnessed by many gentle-' 
men who approved of it; and the combination of the second carriage 
I applied for a patent for. The model carriage can now be seen in 
the room of the Patent Office, containing models of all rejected 
patents. After this, I heard of McCormick making experiments at 
one of his Western factories — I think it was at Chicago; and finally 
he addressed xn^ a letter, stating lie had changed tlie construction of Ids 
machine, and had it so constructed that the raker could ride on the machine 
and remove t/ie. grain.'' 

We think the foregoing letter — for it carries truth on its face — clearly 
shows that the idea of " changing the construction of the machine," 
and permit the raker to ride, did not originate with the McCormick's, 
father or son; for "they had tried every imaginable plan or way before 
placing the machine before the public, and that they regarded it as an 
impossibility for the wheat to be so removed regularly, successfully 
and properly, in any other way except on foot." 

At the trial referred to at Hutchinson's, and the late Senator 
Roane's in 1843, it was demonstrated that a raker could ride and rake, 
and as was also done by Hussey many years before, at various places, 
and delivering the grain at back or side. But we have still better evi- 
dence than the above — C. H. McCormick himself. 

His Patent of 1847, covering some four or five folio pages, is alto- 
gether to change "the construction of the machine," to admit of, and 
to patent the raker's seat; the substance of the whole is comprised 
within the following brief extract from the patent of 1847: 

"And the gearino- which communicates motion to the crank is placed back of 
the driving wheel, which is therefore subject to be clogged by sand, dirt, straw, &c. 
— and in cottseqi/ence of the relative position of the various parts, the attendant is 
obliged to walk on the ground by the side of the viachine, to rake the cut grain from 
the platform as it is delivered and laid there by the reel. These defects which have 
so much retarded the introduction into practical and general use of Reaping Ma- 
chines, I have remedied by my improvements, the nature of which consists in plac- 
ing the driving wheels further back than heretofore, and back of the gearing which 
communicates motion to the sickle, which is placed in a line back of the axis of the 
driving wheel, the connexion being formed, &c. and also bringing the driving wheel 
sufficiently far back to balance the frame of the machine 7vith the raker on it, to make 
room for him to sit or stand on the frame," &c. &ic.--"'whi':h canjtot be done, if the 
raker walks by the side of the machine, as heretofore." 

Now if C. H. McCormick's testimony in his own favor, can be con- 
sidered reliable, he certainly had not zV/t'^///^^/ a seat for his raker as 
late as 1845 — and not long prior to 1847, when he patented it; and 
]ws\. fourteen years after Hussey had used it every year, successively. 
The raker's seat therefore was just as original ■d,Vi invention as the reel. 
2 



18 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

The "straight sickle blade," but cut one way only, and abandoned 
some 10 or 12 years after its conception in 1831, as he states, appears 
to be the only original idea — properly belonging to whom it may — in 
the patent of 1834. As to the " foundation " of the machine, viz: — the 
platform, cog wheels, crank, &c. &c., they have been used by every 
projector in reaping machines, for a century. 

A machine exhibited at the World's Fair in London, by C. H. 
McCormick, had the "straight sickle blade," but alternating the cuts 
every few inches. With such a machine it is impracticable to cut 
grain, much less grass, efficiently, divested of the reel. That plan has 
since been changed to a much more efficient blade, the scolloped edged 
sickle. That it was used in the N. Western States by others several 
years previous to its adoption by C. H. McCormick, we believe admits 
of just as little doubt, as rests with the priority of invention of the 
Reel, Rakers-seat, &c. 

There is one other important feature, patented in 1845 ^"^ referred 
to in the Pusey letter; — an "Iron case to preserve the sickles from 
clogging;" these we will also take a look into after a while. 

Obed Hussey as appears by the evidence before us, made his first 
Machine in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he then resided, in the spring of 
1833, and it was patented the same year. Threshing machines were 
then being introduced into that section, and were attracting much 
notice. Overhearing the conversation of an individual interested in 
such implements, he asked the question if there were no machines to 
reap the grain? The reply was no; " and whoever will invent one will 
make a fortune." 

Without any knowledge, as we believe, of what had been done by 
others, — and certainly his occupations had not been such as to make 
him familiar with the subject by reading, or otherwise — it claimed the 
attention of his leisure hours so far as to make a model. This satisfied 
him that the thing was practicable, and he undertook an operating 
machine, which although lightly made, was sufficient fully to test the 
principle. 

This principle — the arrangement and construction of the Guards 
and Knives, was precisely identical with those used by him at the 
present day, except an improvement patented in 1847, leaving open- 
ings at the back end of the slot in the guards for the escape of parti- 
cles of straw or grass that might get in between the blades and guards. 

It was communicated at the time by letter with a diagram to a per- 
sonal friend now living, and of the highest respectability, from whom 
we have a certificate, and copy of the drawing. The knives or cutters, 
for lack of more suitable materials were made out of hand saw blades 
cut into suitable form, and riveted to a bar, vibrating through an 
opening or slot in the guards. 

Judge Foster residing within a few miles of the city, and to whom 
he applied, kindly offered him every facility to test the machine by 
cutting grain, ripe and unripe, being himself greatly interested in its 
success. When taken to the field, a considerable number of persons 
were attracted to the spot; and rather to the discomfiture of the in- 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 19 

venter, for it may well be supposed it was an anxious moment to him, 
and he desired no witnesses to his failure. The machine was started; 
but owing to some part giving away, or some slight defect not appar- 
ent until then, it failed to work satisfactorily. One burley fellow 
present picked up a cradle, and swinging it with an air of great exul- 
tation, exclaimed, " this is the machine to cut the wheat !" 

After the jeers and merriment of the crowd had somewhat subsided, 
the inventor remedied the defect, and assisted by the laborers present 
— the horses having been removed — pulled the machine to the top of 
an adjacent hill; when alone, he drew the machine down the hill, and 
through the standing grain, when it cut every head clean in its track ! 

The same machine was directly afterwards exhibited before the 
Hamilton County Agricultural Society near Carthage, on the 2nd of 
July, 1833. Of its operation and success, the following statements: 
and certificates, now in our possession, sufficiently testify. Doctor 
Wallace as well as some others of the gentlemen, are living witnesses 
of what is here stated. 

Cincinnati, November 20th, 1833. 

This may certify, that I was present on the 2nd day of July near 
Carthage in this county, at an experiment trial with a machine in- 
vented by Mr. Obed Hussey for cutting grain, The operation was 
performed on a field of wheat. The machine was found to cut the 
w^heat clean, and with great rapidity. But owing to. its having been 
imperfectly made, being only constructed for the experiment, some 
parts of 7<;y7^^ which should have been made of iron, and in conse- 
quence frequently getting some parts out of order, a correct estimate 
of the quantity of work it would perform in a given time could not be 
made. One point was however satisfactorily established, that the 
principle upon which the machine is constructed will operate; and 
when well built will be an important improvement, and greatly facili- 
tate the harvesting of grain. I would also remark that the horses 
moving the machine, were walked, and trotted, and it was found to 
cut best with the greatest velocity. 

C. D. Wallace. 
Secretary of the Hamilton County Agricultural Society. 

We, the undersigned, witnessed the exhibition of Mr. O. Hussey's 
Machine for cutting grain alluded to by Dr. Wallace, and do fully 
concur with his statement of its performance. We would further add, 
that notwithstanding its temporary construction, its performance far 
exceeded our expectation. Cutting the grain clean and rapidly, and 
leaving it in good order for binding. We are of the opinion that the 
machine is capable of being propelled at the rate of five miles the 
hour, and do good work. The machine was worked when the cutters 
were both in a sharp, and a dull condition, and no difference could be 
perceived in its execution. 

( Signed. ) 
G. A. Mavhew, Jacob White, S. W. Folger, 

T. R. Seb'ring, H. B. Coffin, T. B. Coffin, 

A. Castner, C. F. Coffin, Wm. Paddock. 



20 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

There are several other certificates equally conclusive and satis- 
factory; but we will only copy in addition to the foregoing, a short 
piece from the " Farmer and Mechanic," issued July 3d, 1833, i" Cin- 
cinnati, as follows: 

"Several members of the Agricultural Society on last Wednesday, attended in 
Carthage to see a machine for cutting wheat by horse power, in operation. It was 
propelled by two horses, and cut as fast as eight persons could conveniently bind, 
doing the cutting neatly. 

This machine is the invention of Mr. O. Hussey, and will no doubt prove a 
useful addition to our agricultural implements. Mr. J. C. Ludlow suggested that it 
would be good economy of time and labor, to take a threshing machine into the 
field, and thresh out the grain as it is reaped, thereby saving the binding and hauling 
to the barn or stack. We think the suggestion a good one." 

Here then, was the problem solved — the great discovery made, 
that had puzzled the brains of hundreds if not of thousands, and for 
centuries. No one we fearlessly assert had ever succeeded so com- 
pletely and satisfactorily, and with so simple and practical a machine. 

Some visited the exhibition determined to condemn as they after- 
wards acknowledged, deeming the thing impracticable; but all were 
convinced; for the demonstration was of that character which left 
no room for doubt or cavil on the minds of any. 

It was indeed a triumph, — not perhaps entirely unexpected to the 
inventor — but neither he, or any one else at that early day, could 
foresee the wonderful changes ultimately to be effected, and the world 
wide renown to be conferred on the inventor as the result of this 
experiment; one that was certain to immortalize his name as a pioneer 
and benefactor in the most useful and peaceful pursuits in life. It was 
too, the dawn of a brighter day to the toiling husbandman, by lighten- 
ing his labours, and adding to his comfort and independence; only 
circumscribed in its beneficial influence by the bounds of civilization. 

Some may possibly suppose that we view the invention in too 
glowing colours; but we have yet to meet with the farmer who owned 
a good reaping and mowing machine, that would dispense with its 
advantages for twice the cost of the implement, and again be com- 
pelled to resort to the sickle, the cradle, and the scythe; for of a truth 
it completely supersedes all three in competent hands and with fair 
usage, in both the grain and grass crops. 

It is difficult to confine our narrative to its intended brief limits 
and select from the mass of evidence on hand, as to the uninterrupted 
success of Hussey's invaluable invention from that day to the present — 
now twenty one years. We will therefore only select a single and short 
account of each year; until about 1840 or '42; not long after which 
a few other inventors came before the public. There was however 
no competitor in the field from 1833, to 1841, or 1842, either in Europe 
or America, so far as we can ascertain, that did more than make a few 
occasional trials; none attracted public attention, or were successful 
and efficient machines even in the estimation of the projectors them- 
selves. The evidence proves it, and it is corroborated by our own 
personal knowledge, having been constantly engaged in Agricultural 
and Mechanical pursuits for more than thirty years — and as we believe, 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 21 

familiar with most of the important improvements of the age; — 
of all in fact, directly connected with agriculture in its labour saving 
implements, of any notoriety. 

Many alleged improvements have been made in the Reaper in the 
past 10 or 12 years; and many more still, within half that period. 
How far they are nezv inventions, and actual improv erne tits, we can 
better judge by examining Hussey's patent; for it describes the cutting 
apparatus clearly and minutely, and which in fact is the whole thing, — 
the " one thing needful " to success. For the use of wheels, or a system 
of gearing to all kinds of motive machinery is coeval with the first 
dawn of mechanical science. How ancient we know not, for the 
Prophets of old spoke of " wheels within wheels " near three thousand 
years ago; and it is very certain the hand of man, unaided by wheels 
and machinery, never erected the vast Pyramids and other structures 
of antiquity. We do not believe there is a single Reaping and Mowing 
machine in successful operation on this continent that is not mainly 
indebted to Hussey's invention in the cutting apparatus, for its success: 
deprive them of this essential feature — disrobe them of their borrowed 
plumes, and their success would be like the flight of the eagle, suddenly 
bereft of his pinions, — he must fall; and the machines would stand 
still, for not a* farmer in the land would use them. 

As previously remarked, O. Hussey's first patent is dated in 1833. 
We omit the more general description of the machine, and copy only 
what embraces the most important features, the guards and knives: 
also an extract from his improvement patented in 1847, to obviate 
choking in the guards: 

"On the front edge of the platform is fixed the cutting or reaping apparatus, 
which is constructed in the following manner: — A series of iron spikes, and which 
I will Q.2W guards, are fixed permanently to the platform, and extend seven or eight 
inches, more or less, beyond the edge of the platform, parallel to each other, 
horizontal, and pointing forward. — These guards are about three inches apart, 
of a suitable size, say three-quarters of an inch square, more or less, at the base, 
and lessening towards the point. The guards are formed of a top and bottom piece, 
joined at the point and near the back, being nearly parallel, and about one-eighth 
of an inch apart, forming a horizontal mortice or slit through the guard; these 
mortices being on a line with each other, form a continued range of openings 
or slits through the guards. The first guard is placed on the rear of the right 
wheel, and the last at the extreme end of the platform, and the intermediate guards 
at equal distances from each other, and three inches apart, more or less, from center 
to center. 

The cutter or saw, f, is formed of thin triangular plates of steel fastened 
to a straight flat rod, g. of steel, iron or wood, one-inch and a-half wide; these 
steel plates are arranged side by side, forming a kind of saw with teeth three inches 
at the base, and four and a half inches long, more or less, sharp on both sides, 
and terminating nearly in a point. The saw is then passed through all the guards 
in the aforesaid range of mortices, the size of the mortice being suited to receive 
the saw with the teeth pointing forward; observing always that the points of the 
saw teeth should correspond with the center of the guards. One end of the saw 
is connected with a pitman moved by a crank, and receiving its motion from the 
main axis, by one or two sets of cog wheels. The vibration of this crank must 
be equal to the distances of the centers of the guards, or the points of the saw teeth, 
or thereabouts, so when the machine is in motion, the point of each saw tooth may 
pass from center to center of the guards on each side of tlie same tooth at every 
vibration of the crank; if the main wheels are three feet four inches in diameter. 



22 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

they should in one revolution give the crank sixteen vibrations, more or less; 
the saw teeth should play clear of the guards, both above and below. * * * 

Operation. — The power is given by locking the wheels to the main axis, 
the machine has one square wheel box, the other round and locked at pleasure. 
If the power should be wanted, one, two, or more horses are attached and driven 
on the stubble before the machine, the right wheel running near the standing grain, 
the platform with the saw in its front edge extends on the right, at right angles 
with the direction of the horses, with the guards and saw teeth presented to the 
standing grain — when the machine moves forward, the saw moves with the teeth 
endwise and horizontal, the grain or grass is brought between the guards, the saw 
teeth in passing through the guards, cut the stalk while held both above and below 
the saw — the butts of the grain receive an impulse forward by the motion of the 
machine while in the act of being cut, which causes the heads of the grain to fall 
directly backwards on the platform — in this manner the platform receives the grain 
until a sufficient quantity is collected to make one or more bundles, according to the 
pleasure of the operator, then it^is deposited with a proper instrument by the oper- 
ator, WHO MAY RIDE ON THE MACHINE." 

Here follows the dimensions of a machine suited to two horses, 
which is only copied so far as refers to the cutting apparatus, viz: 
"the back of the saw may be from one inch to i^ inches wide, and 
from three sixteenths to one quarter of an inch thick; and the steel 
plates for the teeth should be about one-tenth of an inch thick; one 
end of the mortice in the guard should be fitted to receive the back 
of the saw, so that the bearing may be on the back of the saw only." 

"In this machine the following points are claimed as new and original: — 
. 1st. — The straight horizontal saw, with the teeth sharp on their two sides for cutting 
grain. 2d. — The guards forming double bearers above and below the saw, whereby 
the cutting is made sure, whether with a sharp or dull edge, the guards at the same 
time protecting the saw from rocks or stones, or other large substances it may meet 
with. 3d. — The peculiar construction that the saw teeth may run free, whereby 
the necessary pressure and consequent friction of two correspondmg edges cutting 
together, as on the principle of scissors, is entirely avoided. 4th, — The peculiar 
arrangement by which the horses are made to go before the machine, being more 
natural, and greatly facilitating the use of the machine, and the general arrange- 
ment of the points as above described. 

In cutting grass, the platform is reduced in width, and the grass falls on the 
ground as it is cut.'' 

In the improvement of the guards patented in 1847, the claim 
states, " I accordingly claim the opening above the blades A, fig. 3, 
and at D. fig i, in cornbination with vibrating blades. I also claim 
the particular- application of the flush edge at the fork of the blades, 
for the purpose described. j' 

The end and design of the improvements above claimed, is to pre- 
vent the blades choking." 

E7i passa?tt, we would ask any intelligent and candid farmer 
or mechanic who has examined a successful reaper, to compare the 
foregoing plain specifications which all can understand, with the 
cutting apparatus of the most successful modern machine. And 
we would especially desire him to compare them in principle with^ 
the "improved form of fingers to hold up the corn, and an iron case 
to preserve the sickles from clogging;" not the alleged invention 
of 1831, by C. H. McCormick, and abandoned from 1840 to 1843, 
but the claims patented by him in 1845, [as stated in the letter 
to Philip Pusey, M. P.] twelve years after the date of Hussey's patent, 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 23 

and twelve years after his most complete and uninterrupted success 
in cutting both grain and grass. In fact there was no year from, and 
including 1833, up to 1854, a period of 21 years the past harvest, 
that we have not the most positive and conclusive evidence of the 
success of Hussey's reaper; in numerous cases the same machines had 
cut from 500 to 800, and even one thousand acres; in one instance, 
the same machine was used for fourteen harvests, or as many years, 
successiv^ely and successfully. 

We have given some of the evidence for 1833. For 1834 we annex 
two letters giving an account of the two machines made this year, 
one in Illinois, and the other in New York, viz: 

Spring Creek, Sangamon Co., III., 
Oct. 1st, 1854. 
Mr. Obed Husscy, Balti?nore. 

Dear Sir: — Your favor of August loth came to hand a few days 
since. The reason was, it lay at Berlin (formerly Island Grove Post- 
office) and my Post-office address is Springfield, the only place where 
I call for letters. 

In answer to your query, how your Reaping Machine worked 
in 1834, I have to say that it cut about sixteen acres of wheat for 
me on my farm; that it did the work in first rate style; according 
to my best recollection, as well as any of the machines that have 
since been introduced. The only objection I recollect being made, 
was, that when the straw was wet, or there was much green grass 
among the wheat, the blades would choke. You certainly demon- 
strated in 1834 the practicability of cutting grain or grass with horse 
power; and all the machines since introduced, seem to have copied 
your machine in all its essential features. 

I am respectfully yours, 

John E. Canfield. 



The next letter, we copy from the Genessee Farmer of Decem- 
ber 6th, 1834. • The reader will readily perceive that the author, 
Wm. C. Dwight, knew how to handle the pen as well as the plow, 
and equally well to work the reaper, being a practical farmer. 
But we are pained to add that he lost his life by the fatal railroad 
accident at Norwalk, Ct. about a year since. 

From the Genessee Farmer, Dec. 6, 1834. 
To the Editor of the Ge?iessce Farmer: 

I wrote you last May that Mr. Hussey, the inventor of a machine 
for harvesting wheat, had left in this village one of his machines for 
the purpose of giving our farmers an opportunity to test its value, 
and I promised to write you further about it when it had been put 
to use. For many reasons which will not interest either yourself or the 
public, the matter has been delayed till the first rainy day, after my 
fall work was out of the way, should give leisure to remember and 
fulfil my promise. 



24 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

The machine has been fully tried, and I am gratified to be able 
to say, that it has fully succeeded; hundreds of farmers from the 
different towns of this and the adjoining counties, have witnessed 
its operations, and all have not only expressed their confidence in its 
success, but their gratification in the perfection of the work. 

As every inquirer asks the same series of questions, I presume 
your readers will have a like course of thought, and wish for satisfac- 
tion in the same particulars. To give them this, I will write them 
in their order, and give the answers: 

Does the machine make clean work? 

It saves all the grain. To use the language of a gratified looker-on, 
an old and, experienced farmer, " it cheats the hogs."* 

Does the machine expedite the work? 

What the machine is capable of accomplishing, we who have used 
it can hardly say, as we had no field in fit order, large enough for 
a fair trial thro' a whole day; and can only say what it has done. 
Five acres of heavy wheat, on the Genessee flats, were harvested 
in two hours and a quarter. 

In what condition is the wheat left, and how is the work done 
where the wheat is lodged? 

The machine leaves the wheat in gavels large enough for a sheaf, 
and where grain stands well enough to make fair work with the cradle, 
it leaves the straw in as good condition to bind as the gavels of a good 
reaper. Whether the grain stands or is lodged is of little consequence, 
except as to the appearance of the sheaf, and the necessity of saving 
more straw, when lodged, than is desirable. The condition of the 
sheaf when the grain is lodged depends much upon the adroitness 
of the raker. 

What number of hands, and what strength of team is necessary 
to manage the machine advantageously? 

Two men, one to drive the team and the other to rake off the 
wheat, and two horses, work the machine; but when the grain is heavy, 
or the land mellow, a change of horses is necessary, as the gait of the 
horses is too rapid to admit of heavy draft The horses go at the rate 
of four to five miles an hour, and when the growth of straw is not 
heavy a fair trot of the team is not too much. 

Is the machine liable to derangement and destruction from its 
own motion? 

This is a question which cannot be so directly answered as the 
others. We have only used the machine to cut about fifty acres, 
and have had no trouble; judging from appearances so far, should 
say it was as little subject to this evil as any machinery whatever. 
The wear upon the cutting part being so little as to require not more 
than fifteen minutes sharpening in a day; there is no loss of time 
on this score. 

Is the sheaf a good one to thresh? 

The man who has fed the threshing machine with the grain 
of twenty acres cut by this machine, says the sheaves are much 

* The hogs are the gleaners in this section of country. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 25 

better than those of cradled grain, and quite as good as those 
of a reaper. 

There is one more advantage beyond ordinary inquiries, of conse- 
quence, where so much grain is raised as in this valley; be the grain 
ever so ripe, there is no waste of grain by any agitation of the .<=traw, 
and all the waste which can take place must arise from the handling 
and shaking in binding. 

I am yours, &c. 

Wm.C. Dwight. 
Moscow, Livingston Co. N. Y., Nov. 14, 1834. 

N. B. The machine we used was intended only for upland, but 
by some little alterations and additions we used it with equal facility 
on all kinds of soil; and it can be used on any farm so clean from 
stumps and stones as not to endanger the blocking the wheels. 

The following letter is evidence for 1835, ^"<^ ^^so refers to the 
originality of the invention by O. Hussey. 

Palmyra, Mo., Au£: 14, 1854. 

Friend Hussey — Yours duly received. As to the machines sent 
by you (ordered some two years since) they both worked well. 

Before you had invented your machine in 1831 or 1832, your 
attention was drawn to a mode of cutting grain, hemp, and grass, 
and you told me you thought you could invent such a machine 
to be drawn by horses; and after you had returned to Cincinnati 
from Laurenceburg, you wrote me a letter in '32 or at the furthest 
in '33 (for I left Indiana 2nd Oct. 1833) with a draft and description 
of a plan for cutting grain. The draft was thus (here follows a diagram 
of the cutting apparatus exactly as described by the patent) and the 
description was, that these knives were to work by the motion of the 
wheels, being a perfect description of the invented principle. 

As soon as I saw the plan, I was satisfied of its success and wrote 
to you that there was no doubt of the success of your machine; that 
it was astonishing the world had so many thousand years been confined 
to the sickle when so obvious a mode of cutting grain and grass existed; 
and shortly after you obtained a patent for the machine. 

On the 6th July, 1835, V^^ brought to Palmyra two of your 
machines, and they were put in operation near this place — one 
in a meadow between here and Philadelphia, and one in the heavy 
grass in Marion City bottom.* The machines did cut well. I was 
the editor of the Missouri Courier, from the month of November, 1833, 
until 1838, and brought your machine before the public; it excited 
much attention, and its performance was highly satisfactory. The 
results of the trials were published in the paper by me in August 
or. September, 1835. I knew of the capacity of the machine, and that 
it did so execute in the bottom three acres an hour. In this I cannot 
be mistaken, for I felt at the time the deepest interest in the success 

* Both of these machines were sold to Wm. Muldrow, Agent, of Marion College, 
Marion county, Mo. 



26 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

of the machine. Mr. McElroy is dead, where you boarded, and also 
Samuel Muldrow and James Muldrovv. Still I will inquire if any 
persons can be found who were present. 

I know the results, and recollect distinctly the reception the 
machines met with, and the prices, to wit: $150 each. Muldrow bought 
another for ;S500 — which was a whirling wheel. You recollect it: 
it never run any. Yours, I know it was said then, would cut off brush 
large enough for a hoop-pole. Court is now in session, but as soon 
as I can ascertain the witnesses (at the exhibition) I will write you 
further. But my recollection is distinct, from the relations existing 
between us, my interest in machinery generally, and my position 
as editor of the only paper of this section of country. 

As ever, y^our friend, 

Edwin G. Pratt. 



In 1836, O. Hussey visited Maryland at the written solicitation of 
the Board of Trustees of The Maryland Agricultural Society, for 
the Eastern Shore. The fame of his reaping exploits in the State of 
New York, and the far West, had reached the East; though with 
something like a " snail's pace." We had not then the Magnetic Tele- 
graph, which with lightning speed enables the East to talk with the 
West; nor even the " iron horse," by whose speed and power, the 
reaper that cut a large crop of wheat in Maryland, could within the same 
week, cut another equally large in the valley of the Mississippi; but it 
then required some two to \.\\xqq. years to prepare the public mind for 
the reception of the machine here; and owing to the limited means of 
the inventor, the transportation from place to place was often done 
by a single horse; accompanied by the inventor foot-sore and weary 
from walking hundreds of miles! 

The annexed certificate was given, published, and widely circu- 
lated after a full trial of the machine, in cutting more than two hun- 
dred acres, and by large farmers and practical men, known throughout 
the State. Comment is unnecessary on such a paper; but we feel 
bound to state that it was mainly owing to the exertions of the liberal 
public spirited gentlemen, the last, though not the least of the signers, 
Gen. Tench Tilghman, that the Reaper was then introduced into this 
State. He was the early and steadfast friend of the Patentee, and to 
the cause of agricultural improvement in our State. Strange as it may 
appear to many at the present day, and notwithstanding these demon- 
strations in Ohio, Illinois, New York, Missouri and Maryland, which 
did not admit of cavil or doubt as to the entire efficiency and success 
of Hussey's reaper, scarcely a farmer could be found ready and willing 
to take hold of it, and aid the Inventor in introducing it into use. But 
farmers as a class are proverbially cautious, and disinclined to change 
from established customs and usages; it often requires " line upon 
line and precept upon precept," aided too, by almost a free gift of the 
article, to induce them even to give a new agricultural implement a 
fair trial, — a plough for instance, that will do better work, with a fourth 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 27 

to a third less draught; the old and nearly worn out implement " does 
well enough." Gen. T. was, we believe, the first farmer in Maryland 
to use, and purchase a reaping machine; and by so doing, to aid the 
inventive genius and talent of his countrymen, and also at the same 
time greatly to benefit the interest of his brother farmers. It avails 
little to the inventor, or the public, how valuable his improvement may 
be, — for in nine cases out of ten the inventor is limited in means — if 
none can be found who are both able and willing to lend a helping 
hand to modest merit; foir true genius is ever modest; and unfortu- 
nately the term is too often synonymous with penury and want. 

Very few of the really valuable inventions inure to the benefit of the 
inventors, — even to a tithe of the profits that are occasionally realized, 
His necessities often compel him to a forced sale of his Patent right 
to some capitalist who has the tact to turn other men's wits to his own 
advantage; or the Public, — which simply means other capitalists of 
another description, who possess little or no inventive genius them- 
selves, and just about as much principle as genius — seize upon the 
invention, and often in spite of law, justice, or right, reap the reward 
justly due to another. 

This however, is a digression for which we beg the reader's par- 
don; but we could not let the occasion pass, without rendering this 
honest tribute to the public spirited farmer, v/ho had the discernment 
to perceive its merits, and the liberality to aid its introduction, of one 
of the most valuable improvements of this, or any age. 



REPORT of the Board of Trustees of " The Maryland Agricultural 
Society," for the Eastern Shore, on the Machine for Harvesting 
Small Grain, invented by Mr. Obed Hussey of Cincinnati, Ohio. 
— Trial for Harvest of iSj6. 

The favorable accounts of the operation of this implement, in sev- 
eral of the Western States, induced the Board to invite Mr. Hussey to 
bring it to Maryland and submit it to their inspection. It was accord- 
ingly exhibited in Oxford, Talbot Co., on the first of July, in presence 
of the Board and a considerable number of other gentlemen. Its per- 
formance may justly be denominated perfect, as it cuts every spear of 
grain, collects it in bunches of the proper size for sheaves, and lays it 
straight and even for the binders. On the 12th July, a public exhibi- 
tion was made at Easton, under the direction of the Board; several 
hundred persons, principally farmers, assembled to witness it, and 
expressed themselves as highly satisfied with the result. At the 
Trappe, where it was shown by the Inventor on the following Saturday, 
an equal degree of approbation was evinced. It was afterwards used 
on the farm of Mr. Tench Tilghman, where 180 acres of wheat, oats, 
and barley were cut with it. Three mules of medium size worked in it 
constantly with as much ease as in a drag harrow. They moved with 
equal facility in a walk or trot. A concise description of this simple 



28 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

implement will show that it is admirably adapted to the important 
purpose for which it was invented. Resting on two wheels which are 
permanently attached to the machine and impart the motion to the 
whole, the main body of the machine is drawn by the horses along the 
outer edge of the standing grain. As the horses travel on the outside 
of the grain, it is neither knocked down or tangled in the slightest 
degree. Behind the wheels is a platlorm, (supported by a roller or 
wheel,) which projects beyond the side of the machine five feet into 
the grain. On the front of the edge projecting part of the platform is 
the cutter. This is composed of twenty-one teeth resembling large 
lancet blades, which are placed side by side and firmly rivetted to a rod 
of iron. A lateral motion is imparted to it by a crank, causing it 
to vibrate between two rows of iron spikes, which point forward. As 
the machine advances the grain is cut and falls backwards on the plat- 
form where it collects in a pile. A man is placed on the part of the 
platform directly behind the horses, and with a rake of peculiar con- 
struction, pushes off the grain in separate bunches, each bunch mak- 
ing a sheaf. It may appear to some that the grain will accumulate too 
rapidly for this man to perform his duty. But upon considering the 
difference between the space occupied by the grain when standing 
and when lying in a pile after it is cut, it will be evident that the raker 
has ample time to push off the bunches even in the thickest grain. In 
thin grain he has to wait until sufficient has collected to form a sheaf. 

The machine is driven around the grain, which may be sown 
either on a smooth surface or on corn ridges. For the first round a 
way may be cleared with a cradle; but this is deemed unnecessary, for 
the grain when driven over, is left in an inclined position, and by cut- 
ting in the opposite direction as much of it is saved as with a cradle. 
Fourteen acres in corn lands were cut between lO A. M., and 7^2 P- M. 
The hands had never worked with the machine before, nor was it a 
trial day's work For owing to the shortness of the straw, the machine 
was not allowed to cut when passing over the ridges from one side of 
the ground to the other, and this time was consequently lost. From 
the principle on which the cutting is performed, a keen edge to the 
cutter is by no means essential. The toughest weeds, an occasional 
corn stalk or a stick of the thickness of a man's little finger, have been 
frequently cut without at all affecting its operation; it can be sharp- 
ened, however, in a few minutes with a file. The width of the swath 
may be increased by having the cutter made longer, and the same 
machine will cut a stubble of several different heights. 

There is ample room to make the different parts of any size, 
though the strength of every part has been fully tested. The machine 
has been often choked by oyster-shells getting into the cutter, in 
attempting to cut too low a stubble. The motion of the machinery 
being checked, the main wheels slide on the ground; the strain on 
every part being equal to the power exerted by the horses. It can be 
managed by any intelligent careful negro. We deem it a simple, 
strong, and effective machine, and take much pleasure in awarding 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 29 

unanimously the meritorious inventor of it a handsome pair of sil- 
ver cups. ROBT. H. GOLDSBOROUGH, 

SAMUEL STEVENS, 
SAME. T. KENNARD, 
ROBT. BANNING, 
SAME. HAMBEETON, Sr. 
NICHE. GOEDSBOROUGH, 
ED. N. HAMBEETON, 
JAMES EI. CHAMBEREAIN, 
MARTIN GOEDSBOROUGH, 
HORATIO L. EDMONDSON, 
TENCH TIEGHMAN. 



The following- three letters not only embrace the year 1837, but 
are equally good evidence from that period to the present, 1854. As 
they are short, and to the point, we use them all. The very appropri- 
ate and just remarks of Col. Hughes as regards the rights, and what is 
due to inventive talent, we most cordially respond to; as must every 
right minded and disinterested reader. He refers to Col. Edw. Lloyd 
of " Wye House" as the largest wheat grower in Maryland; we much 
doubt if he is not the largest in the Union. Several years since, he 
informed us that his average crop of wheat was from 33 to 35 thousand 
bushels; and a year or two ago we learned that the crop exceeded 
forty thousand bushels. He now, and for many years past has used 
Hussey's Reaper exclusively. More satisfactory and conclusive evi- 
dence cannot be given, or desired, than is afforded in these three let- 
ters, of the early use, and long proved efficiency of the invention. 

HoRNEWOOD, E. Shore, Md., Aug. 22, '54. 

Dear Sir: — In reply to your enquiry whether I recollect the time, 
and the success of your reaping machine at my father's in 1837, I 
answer that I do perfectly; and also seeing it in operation in company 
with my friend Mr. J. H. Luckett, of Balto., at Col. H. L. Edmondson's 
of Talbot Co. the same season. 

My father expressed himself highly satisfied with the perform- 
ance of the reaper, as did other gentlemen who saw it in operation at 
Cheston. So well convinced was my father of the value of the 
machine, that he offered you a considerable advance per acre on your 
charge for cutting, to remain and reap his two fields, say 125 to 130 
acres, which you declined, owing to prior engagements. At an early 
date after this trial, my father secured one of your reapers, and the farm 
has since never been without. 

My brother Dr. DeCourcy has now one which did its work most 
excellently well this past harvest, and without any stoppage. With 
some trivial repairs, it has been in successful use nearly ten years. 

Wishing you every possible success with your reaper, for which 
the agricultural community owe you a heavy debt, 

I am respectfully, yours, 

N. H. RoziER DeCourcey. 



30 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

Baltimore, October 17th, 1854. 
To Obcd Hussey, Esq. 

Sir — In the harvest of 1837 I saw one of your Reapers in opera- 
tion in my neighborhood [West River, Anne Arundel Co., Md.] in 
charge of the Hon. John C. Weems, who I believe was the owner of it; 
.and was so much pleased with its performance, that I ordered one 
from you in the following year, 1838, which you set in motion for me. 
It worked most admirably, and fully met my expectations; as it has 
done from that early period to the present day. 

In a loose way, I estimated that in the saving of labour, and grain 
from shattering, it nearly or quite paid for itself the first harvest. Since 
then the machine has been much improved. 

Up to the time I purchased, very few had been used in this State. 
The first, as I have always understood, was bought by that intelligent 
and enterprising farmer. Gen. Tench Tilghman, of Oxford, Talbot 
County. In 1838, Col. Edward Lloyd, of "Wye," Talbot Co., the largest 
wheat grower in Maryland, and myself, as above mentioned, availed 
ourselves of your invention; but I did not hear of any other orders for 
it in this State. It came, like most other agricultural implements, 
slowly into use; and I fear has not fairly compensated you for the 
labor and ingenuity bestowed upon it. This, however, is too often the 
fate of discoverers and inventors; and others reap the fruits of their 
toil and genius. I have long thought that governments were unjust to 
inventors; and could never understand why a man ha= not the same 
right of property to a machine conceived in his head, and con- 
structed by his hands, as to that acquired in any other manner. The 
same that a farmer has to the lands he owns. 

Very respectfully, y'r ob't serv't, 

Geo. W. Hughes. 



Oxford, Md., Sept. 22d, 1854. 
Mr. Obed Hussey : 

Dear Sir: — I recently received from the Commissioner of Patents 
the Report on Mechanics for 1853, and have examined with much 
interest the descriptions of what claim to be improvements in the 
Reaping Machine. 

I was rather surprised to find that so many of them were almost 
identical with the notions which were tried and rejected during the 
season 5''ou spent with me nearly twenty years ago; when for the first 
time, (I believe,) a reaper was used throughout our entire harvest, on 
a farm as large as six hundred acres. 

You had just then arrived from Cincinnati with two machines — one 
a reaper, and the other a reaper and mower. 

They were exhibited publicly at Oxford and Easton, and their 
operation on wheat gave entire satisfaction. The work throughout the 
harvest was equally well done; the only objection being the delay 
caused by repairing the machinery, a difficulty common to all new 
machines of much power at that period. 

Since then, I have used one or more reapers every year, and have 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 31 

watched with much interest the progress of their improvement. I have 
examined most of those which have the best reputation, and do not 
believe there is a single one in which the cutting principle has not been 
copied from yours. ' 

In attempting to avoid an infringement of your patent, variations 
have been made either in the cutting apparatus, or the driving machin- 
ery, by which they have been made more complicated and less effi- 
cient. Burrall's, which approaches nearest to yours in simplicity and 
efficiency, is so close a copy, that I do not see how the courts could 
refuse an injunction to prohibit the use of it. The only material differ- 
ence is the attempt at a side delivery which was tried by you on your 
first machine, and proved an entire failure. 

Believing sincerely that the farmers of the U. S. owe you a debt of 
gratitude, which a regard for themselves should prompt them to pay, 
and understanding that attempts have been made to question even the 
priority of your invention, I send you a volume of the Genessee 
Farmer published in 1834, which will show the opinion entertained at 
that time by the farmers of that celebrated wheat growing region, both 
as to the efficiency and priority of your reaper. 

Your ob't serv't, 

Tench Tilghman. 



As we have already much exceeded the intended limits of the 
narrative, we might, perhaps, with propriety, here rest the Enquiry, 
having as we think satisfactorily shown, and by evidence that cannot 
be disproved; first, that for a period of 9 or 10 years after the alleged 
invention of the reaper by C. H, McCormick in '31, he did not sell a 
single machine; nor could he establish by all the evidence adduced 
before the Board of Extensions, in 1848, that prior to 1840 or 1841, was 
his reaper in any degree an effective or practical machine; for as he 
himself states in the letter to Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., it was not until 
very material alterations — all essential it may be said — were made, 
some 6 or 8 years after the date of the patent, could the machine be 
made to work even tolerably well. Indeed, he states, " I may say they 
were not of much practical value, until the improvements of my 
second patent in 1845," being eleven years after the date of the patent, 
and fourteen years after the alleged invention in 1831. 

On the other hand we have shown by as good and respectable testi- 
mony as can be had in any cause, that from 1833 to 1854, a period of 
twenty-one years, Hussey's invention was most efficient and satis- 
factory, every year ; not by cutting a patch of the fraction of an acre, 
but by reaping hundreds, nay thousands of acres annually, by the few 
machines placed in the hands of the farmers from '33 to '40. 

As however, we have given no direct evidence from Delaware, or 
Virginia, none from North Carolina, and but one from New York, we 
annex a few short testimonials from each, that embrace the period 
from 1838 to 1845; ^"<^ with a few more of the same respectable char- 
acter up to 1853, both in this country and in England, we will leave 
the decision of the question to the intelligent reader. — We will how- 



32 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

ever, call the reader's attention to the concluding paragraph of Maj. J. 
Jones' letter, from Delaware — one of the smallest States, but contain- 
ing as large a proportion of noble minded, talented men, and as good 
practical farmers, as any in the Union.* 

It will be perceived that a Reaper sold in 1838 to the St. George's 
and Appoquinomick Ag. Society, had, after subsequently coming into 
the possession of Col. Vandergrift, and prior to 1845, " cut about seven 
hundred acres of his grain," and "was then in good repair"! We wish 
it was in our power to state, how many times seven hundred acres, this 
single machine had reaped since 1838. 

Wheatland, Del. July 21, 1845. 

Mr. Hussey — Dear Sir: I have just finished cutting my oats; I 
finished cutting my wheat on the 28th of June, having cut over 160 
acres, excepting what was cut by a cradle in opening tracks for the horses 
and rounding the corners so that the machine might sweep round 
without loss of time in turning, which it did with ease and certainty, 
cutting more than 20 acres a day on an average. A part of the wheat 
was so heavy as to require three active shockers to keep up with the 
cutting; the whole cost of all necessary repairs 313^ cents for the harvest. 

Of the two machines which I purchased of you, I used the large 
one, having sold the small one to Richard Millwood, who rents the 
farm of Dr. Noble. Strange as it may appear, I could find no laiid- 
Jiolder in the vicinity who had enterprise enough to risk the purchase 
of that machine until they could see it work; but after the perform- 
ance was once witnessed, the impression it made was such as to justify 
me in ordering you to have ten ready by next harvest for New Castle 
County, Del. Mr. Millwood's wheat was very heavy, one measured 
acre having 60 dozen sheaves upon it, and the whole cutting time on 
the 40 acre field was but two days, making for the small machine a 
full average of 20 acres per day, without any repairing or accident. 
None of the hands who worked it had ever seen such a machine before 
those you sent to me My crop has not all passed through the half 
bushel yet, but it will fall but little short of 3000 bushels — I expect it 
will all be in market to-morrow. 

In conversation with Col. Vandergrift, the present owner of the 
Reaper you sold to the St. George and Appoquinomick Agricultural 
Society, in 1838, he told me that he had cut about 700 acres of wheat 
and oats with it since he owned it, and up to that time the cost of 
repairs had been $1.25 for every hundred acres cut. It was then in 
good repair. Yours, 

John Jones. 

♦It is reported of one of her sons, that during the struggle for Independence, 
when a Delegate to the Convention from one of the largest and most powerful 
Colonies was ready to quail and almost despair of success in the unequal contest, he 
was encouraged and cheered on by a member from little Delaware; and told, that 
when he found his Colony likely to be overrun by the enemy, to call on Delaware for 
aid — she would lend a helping hand, 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 33 



Jefferson County, Va., Aug. 9th, 1845. 
To Mr. Obcd H^isscy — Dear Sir: We the undersigned having used your 
Reaping machine during the recent harvest in cutting our respective 
crops, take great pleasure in tendering to you this voluntary testimonial 
of the very high estimation in which we hold your invention. We have 
now tried your machines fully and fairly, and we are unanimous in the 
conclusion that in every case they have borne the test in a manner 
which has excited our highest admiration of their merits. We were 
particularly pleased with their work in lodged grain; they cut and 
gather every straw with the utmost ease, and the only fault at all that 
we have had to find with them was that they did not cut wet grain with 
facility; this single defect however, we are pleased to perceive you 
have completely remedied with the late improvement (with open 
guards to the knives, &c.) which the most of us saw at work in Mr. 
Wm. Butler's field cut wet grain and green oats as well as could pos- 
sibly be desired — it will also cut timothy and clover— so that now we 
have no hesitation in recommending your Reaper, as we hereby most 
cordially do, to our brother farmers, as the most complete and efificient 
in agricultural operations, and as one which, whilst from its simple 
and substantial construction, is not liable to be broken or to get out of 
order, will at the same time save its owner the first year more than its 
original cost. 

Wm.. Butler, W. G. Butler, 

J. H. Taylor, Jas. S. Markell, 

W. Shortt, V. M. Butler, 

Joseph M'Murran, Andrew MTntire, 

Daniel G. Henkle, Adam Smell, 

David L. Hensell, George Tabb, 

John Marshall. 



Washington County, Aug. 7th, 1845. 
I hereby certify, that I have used Mr. Obed Hussey's Wheat Cutter 
through the late harvest, and that it answered my fullest expectations, 
in every respect, except that it will not cut when the wheat is damp 
from rain or the dews of the morning. I cut 140 acres of wheat with it in 
nine days; and on one occasion, cut off 30 acres in 18 hours, from day- 
light in the morning until 1 1 o'clock the next day, and with the same 
4 horses, never having changed them during that time. 

John R. Dall. 

Oaklands, (near Geneva,) N. Y. ) 
26th August, 1845. ) 
Mr. Obed Hiissey, Baltimore — 

Dear Sir: Having housed all the grain crops of this farm, it is due 
to you that I should now frankly admit the removal of all my doubts in 
regard to the effectiveness and excellence of your "Reaping Machine." 
The doubts expressed in my early correspondence with you arose 
from the many abortive attempts in this country and in England to 
3 



34 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

produce a Reaping Machine, possessing power and simplicity and dur- 
ability; most of them were complicated, and proved too fragile. 

Soon after the arrival of your Machine, I tried its power and 
became readily familiar with the manner of using it; the result of my 
experience will appear from the following facts: 

The Wheat Crop of this farm covered 104 acres, pro'ducing 2,540 
shocks, 30,480 sheaves, as counted on the ground, and again when 
housed in the Grain barn and sheds. 

The whole crop was cut by your Reaping Machine, in eight days, 
using one team, a boy to drive, and a man to manage the machine. 

The average quantity cut per day was 13 acres. 

The largest quantity cut on any one day, was 17 acres. 

The longest period for working the machine on any one day was 
nine hours. 

Seven men were stationed on the field to bind the sheaves. 

The cost of cutting the wheat with your machine is tzventy-five cents 
per acre. 

The total cost for cutting, raking, binding and shocking, is scvcnty- 
eight ce7its,dLnd a fraction per acre. 

The cost may be stated as follows, viz: 
A man and team for 8 days at 1^1.50 per day, $12 

A boy to drive for 8 days at 50 cts. per day, ■ 4 

Interest on cost of Machine and for wear and tear, say at 

10 per cent. " lO 

$26 

Which is equal to 25 cents per acre on 104 acres. The seven men 
employed to rake and bind, received each $i per day for eight days, 
say S56 — which sum added to the cost for cutting or reaping, gives a 
total cost of S82 — or 78 88-100 cents per acre. 

I have compared this cost, with the cost paid by my neighboring 
farmers this season, and find it vastly in favor of your machine. The 
individual in this town who harvested with the most economy, paid 
Si 13-100 per acre — other farmers have paid from Si 25-100 to $2 per 
acre. - 

Since the wheat harvest, the machine has cut with signal advantage 
about twenty acres of oats. 

The wheat and oats were cut with such neatness and precision that 
the gleanings were not sufficient to pay the labor of raking. 

The machine remains in perfect order; and did not fail to perform 
all you promised. 

I deem it one of the best labor- saving machines ever offered for 
the advantage of the farmer; its effectiveness, simple and durable con- 
struction, have been witnessed with satisfaction by a large number of 
my neighbor farmers. Respectfully yours, 

J. Delafield. 

The machine alluded to in the above letter is the low priced one 
at $100. 

For 1846, '47 and '48, we copy from the Richmond Planter and 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 35 

American Farmer; — and all from North Carolina, though the evidence 
from other sections is much more extended, and equally as con- 
clusive: 

SoMERSEiT Place, Washington Co. 
N. Carolina, 25th Aug. 1847. 
To the Editor of the American Farmer: 

Dear Sir: — Yours of the 6th ult. arrived at my residence during my 
absence, in consequence of which I was unable to return you an 
answer in time for your August No. of the "American Farmer," — I 
trust, however, the delay will not materially affect the value of my 
communication. In consequence of the recommendation of a gentle- 
man who had used "Hussey's Reaper" in the harvest of 1846 with 
much satisfaction, I was induced to make a trial of one the present 
season. It was put in operation under the direction and supervision 
of Mr. Hussey himself, upon a field of reclaimed low ground, origi- 
nally Cypress Swamp, which of course could only be cultivated in 
beds — these beds were six feet wide, including the water-furrow 
between, and were intersected* at intervals of about fifty yards by 
drains, known to us as tap-ditches, which cross the water furrows at 
right angles, and are cut from two to four inches deeper than the 
furrows themselves. I am particular in describing the land, as I had 
always supposed that an insuperable obstacle in the way of the regular 
action of any machine w'ould be found in the irregularity of surface 
into which our land is necessarily thrown by our system of culture. 
The machine surmounted every anticipated difficulty, and was emi- 
nently successful, both in cutting lengthwise with the beds and across 
them. The wheat was cut in a most thorough manner ; nothing 
escaped the cutting surfaces, nor did weeds or any other obstruction 
of the kind hinder the machine from doing its work perfectly. 
During the running of the machine one day in the harvest, 17 acres of 
wheat were cut by it* — this was done by using relays of horses, four 
at each time, the same hands being employed however, and the work- 
ing time was twelve hours. — After a heavy rain we were obliged to 
abandon the use of the machine, owing to the fact that the ground 
became so soft that the "road wheel" as it is termed, buried in the 
soil, and would become clogged with mud. This difficulty can, I have 
no doubt, be easily overcome by increasing the "tread" of this wheel, 
and making some slight alteration in the coo"-wheel which gears 
into it. 

Some two years since I saw an experiment made upon an adjoining 
estate with McCormick's machine — it cut occasionally well where the 
wheat was free from weeds, but any obstruction from that source 
would immediately choke it, when of course the wheat would be over- 
run without being cut — the experiment proved a failure, and the 

*When Mr. Hussey was with me I informed him that the piece of wheat cut by 
the machine on this occasion equalled 20 acres, but I have since discovered that I 
had been mistaken in my calculation of the acre. 



36 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

machine was laid aside. The blade in this machine appears to me to 
be too delicate in its cutting surface, to succeed, except under the 
most favorable circumstances. Quite a number of McCormick's have 
been in use in this part of the country, during the last 2 years, and to 
my inquiries concerning them, 1 have received but one answer and 
that an unfavorable one. The few of Hussey's machines, on the con- 
trary, that have been employed within my ken, have in each instance 
given entire satisfaction — I do not hesitate to say that when well 
managed, with a skilful hand at the rake, in dry wheat, I do not 
recommend it when the straw is wet,) it will, as compared with 
ordinary cutting, save per acre the entire expense of reaping, from the 
thorough manner in which every stalk is cut, thus preventing loss 
or waste. 

Believing as I do, that a great desideratum to those who grow 
wheat upon a large scale, is to be found in Mr. Hussey's Reaper, I 
cannot but wish that both he and they may reap the benefit of its 
general adoption. 

I am sir, very respectfully your ob't serv't, 

JosiAH Collins. 

Edenton, N. C, January 25th, 1848. 
To the Editor of the American Farmer: 

Dear Sir: — Some months ago I received a letter from you, making 
enquiries of me, relative to Hussey's Reaping Machine. When your 
letter reached me, I was on the eve of leaving home for the summer, 
and since my return home, my engagements have been of such a 
character as to cause me until the present to neglect replying to it. 

I have used one of Hussey's machines one season, and though 
under circumstances not very favorable for the machine, I take 
pleasure in stating that its operation was satisfactory. During my 
harvest, which was about three weeks' duration, this machine was kept 
constantly at work, with the exception of a day and a half, yet I did 
not ascertain how many acres it would reap. Mr. Collins, of Lake 
Scuppernong, also used one last season, and from him I learned that 
he cut upwards of 20 acres a day. 

There is certainly much less wheat left in the field by one of these 
machines, than is by the ordinary method of reaping by the scythe or 
reap hook; it cuts close, lays the straw smoothly, thus rendering tying 
of it in sheaves much easier. 

I have witnessed McCormick's, which I consider a poor affair, and 
meriting no consideration except a dissent from me. Many of this 
last kind of reaper found their way here a few years ago; they now, or 
rather their remains, may be seen lying in the field whence they will 
never be removed. 

Thos. D. Warren. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 37 

[From the Richmond Planter.] 
HUSSEY'S AND M'CORMICK'S REAPERS. 

It is very painful to be compelled to inflict a private injury in the 
discharge of a public duty; upon a particular system of cultivation we 
can talk and write without restraint; but when we are called on to dis- 
cuss the merits of an invention, upon which the fortunes of the origi- 
nator may absolutely depend, it is a much more responsible and 
delicate ofifice. We are aware, too, that in introducing a subject of the 
kind, we are opening the floodgates of a controversy that is often hard 
to close; we have had the strongest evidence of that fact in the con- 
troversy that once occurred in this paper between Messrs. M'Cormick 
and Hussey, and yet it is to the relative merits of the reaping machines 
of these two gentlemen, that we are compelled again to draw the 
public attention. Probably not less than fifteen thousand dollars has 
been spent in Virginia this summer for reaping machines, and it 
becomes a subject of great importance to the wheat growing com- 
munity at least, to ascertain how such a sum is annually to be dispensed 
to the greatest advantage. We shall express no opi/iion ourself in the 
discussion which must necessarily follow the introduction of this sub- 
ject, and we would greatly prefer that neither of the gentlemen more 
particularly interested in the subject would appear in our columns. 
We will publish statements of facts for either, provided they are made 
over responsible names, and are short and perminent. As one of these 
facts we feel bound to state, that we acted this year as the agent for 
M'Cormick's machine, and we have heard great complaint of the 
manner in which it was gotten up; but it is but fair also to state, that 
we believe Mr. M'Cormick himself has been superintending the manu- 
facture of his machine in the State of N. York, and that probably his 
work has not been as well done as it would have been could he have 
seen to it in person. The following communication is altogether in favor 
of Hussey's machine: 

" I have had in operation on my plantation this year both Hussey's 
and M'Cormick's reapers. — Now, as you have asked me to furnish the 
"Planter" with the result of my own experience and opinion as to the 
comparative merit of the two machines, it is now at your service. I 
have had them both in operation (as the weather would permit,) for the 
last fortnight, and have cut with the two rather upwards of two 
hundred acres of wheat. Both machines have been, I think very fairly 
tested in all qualities of grain, from wheat five feet and more in height, 
both standing up, and lodged and tangled, and averaging, as is sup- 
posed, from thirty and forty bushels, down to light thin wheat, not 
averaging more than four bushels, (being some galled hills,) and I am 
ca?ididly diud decidedly of opinion that Hussey's machine is vastly sitpe- 
hor. I deem it superior, not only in the execution of its work, but in 
the durability of the machine. So well pleased am I with its perform- 
ance, that I have ordered another machine of Hussey's for my next 



38 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

harvest, and also one, and probably two, for my father's plantation. I 
consider this machine invaluable to the grower of wheat, and would 
recommend every farmer who grows even fifty acres of wheat, to pur- 
chase one. He may rest assured that he will be pleased with his pur- 
chase. I shall probably be in Richmond shortly. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

T. Pollock Burguyn. 

Occonichee Wigwam, near Halifax, N. C. June 20, 184.6. 



For 1849 ^^^'^ 1850 we will return and see how the Invention pro- 
gresses on the broad Prairies and fertile lands of the West, where it 
first operated — -in 1833 and 1834; — and where too, although the most 
luxuriant crops 2^x0. grown with comparatively but little labor, it would 
in many cases be next to impossible to save tJicm, without the aid of 
this invaluable invention. 

These certificates embrace the mowing of large crops of grass as 
well as grain, and in addition, the cutting of more than three hundred 
acres of Jicmp in the harvest of 1849 ^^'^^ i850> by " the same single 
machine." 

Hussey's complete success in cutting grass and hemp, was no new 
thing ten 3'ears ago; but we suppose, like the grain cutting, in the 
view of Philip Pusey, Esq., M. P., " IX.'i perfection depended on its being 
7ieiv only in England," full eighteen years after it was effected in 
America. 



Blackberry, Kane county. 111., Aug. 28, '49. 
This may certify that I have had one of Mr. Hussey's Mowing and 
Reaping Machines on my farm this year cutting Wheat, Oats, and 
Grass for a short time. I think nothing can beat it cutting Timothy 
Grass, and I intend to purchase one for that purpose. While the 
machine was cutting Prairie Grass in my field, I cut off a dry poplar 
stake, one inch in diameter, which had been sticking in the ground 
after it had been laid off for a ditch. I am of the opinion that it will 
cut wheat well, where it is so much lodged, or so foul with stiff weeds' 
or corn stalks, that it cannot be cut with any other machine I have 
seen in this country. Some of my neighbors say that they intend to 
have Mr. Hussey's Reaper in preference to any other; and from what 
I can learn, this opinion is pretty general in my neighborhood, 
amongst those who have seen this machine work, and are acquainted 
with other machines. My brother farmers have had great trouble with 
McCormick's machine, by the breaking of sickles, and the great diffi- 
culty or rather the impossibility of getting them repaired, or getting 
new ones made when broken, whereas the blades of Mr. Hussey's 
machine can be made by any common blacksmith. I have no doubt 
but Mr. Hussey's machine will come into general use. 

D. W. Annis. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 39 

Frank lifi Precinct, DcKalb Co., Aug. 13, '49. 
This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine cut 
about an acre of wheat, so badly lodged that McCormick's Reaper 
could do nothing with it, nor could it be cradled. Said Hussey's 
machine cut it handsomely, and laid it in very good bundles for 
binding. 

John Schoomaker, Daniel Miller, 

Albert Field, Albert Field, Jr , 

John M, Schoomaker, Isaac Crill, 

John Miller. 



Berkshire, Kane cowity, III. Aug. 6, 1849. 
We, the undersigned, having seen Mr. Hussey's Reaper work at 
cutting grass and grain, think it preferable to McCormick's or any 
other machine that we have seen. It cut wheat that could not be cut 
with McCormick's Reaper or a cradle. We are well acquainted with 
McCormick's Machine 

P. A. HixBY, David Shanks, 

John Griggs, Jr., Abraham Shirwood, 

John Griggs, James Hess, 

Harry Potter, Alson Banker, 

John Shirwood, D. C. Wright, 

Seth Shirwood, ' E^lisha Wright. 



Osivcgo, III., Aug. 2, 1S49. 
This may certify that I cut a lot of Black Sea Wheat with Mr. O. 
Hussey's Reaper; the wheat was so badly lodged that no McCormick 
Reaper or Cradle could cut it; Mr. Hussey's Reaper cut it clean and 
laid the bundles out of the track in good order for binding. I have 
seen the work done by this machine in grass: it was as good work as 
ever I saw done by a scythe, or better. For my choice I should 
rather have my grass cut by the Reaper than by the scythe. Every 
farmer ought to have such a machine, and every farmer I hear talk 
about it says the same. 

Philip Young. 

Sugar Grove, August 8, 1849. 
This may certify that we have seen Mr. O. Hussey's machine 
operate in clean grain, and where weeds were very tall, large and 
thick. In the former, it operated as well as any machine we have 
seen; in the latter, it worked to a charm, even where it was impracti- 
cable to cut with one of McCormick's Reapers. 

Harry White, Hiram Tubs, 

L. B. Snow, Dwight Spencer, 

Chauncy Snow, Samuel Ward, 

Sullivan Dorr, A. Logan. 



40 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

Springfield, (111.) Dec. 25, 1850. 
Mr. Obcd H7issey, Baltimore, Md: 

Dear Sir — I have used one of your Mowing and Reaping Machines, 
and consider it the best machine I ever saw, and never intend to do 
without one, if it is possible to get one, even if I have to go to Balti- 
more and remain at the shop till one can be made. I do candidly 
believe if I had had one ten years ago, I would now feel like a much 
younger man; and cheerfully recommend them to all who have grass 
or grain to cut, as a machine that will do their work in perfect order, 
neatness, and with ease to all employed. 

John Simms, 
4 miles west of Springfield, 111. 



Utica, Lasal Co. 111. Dec. 14, 1850. 
Obcd Hitsscy, Esq — Dear Sir: — I received your Reaping and Mow- 
ing Machine in time for harvest, and used it for harvesting and for 
mowing. I am fully satisfied that your machines are the best yet 
offered to the farmers of this State. I have mowed about four hun- 
dred acres, a great portion of which was wild prairie, very frequently 
running against stones and ant heaps with sufficient force to throw 
both driver and raker off the machine, without injury to the machine. 
Why your machine is preferable to any other, is — after you have cut 
your different kinds of grain, fully as well as can be done with any 
other machine, with not over fifteen minutes' work, you can take the 
same machine into your meadow or on to the prairie, and cut your 
grass at the rate of ten acres per day, cutting closer and cleaner than 
can be done with a scythe. — With proper care, your machines will last 
fifteen or twenty years, with trifling repairs. 

Respectfully yours, 

James Clark. 

Isla?id Grove, Sa?igamo?i Co. III. Dec. 25, 1850. 
Mr. Obed Hussey, Baltimore, Md. — Dear Sir — Last summer I 
received two of Hussey's Mowing and Reaping Machines; one from 
your own shop in Baltimore, and the other manufactured in this State, 
Unfortunately for me, I retained the one manufactured in this State, 
and with some difficulty succeeded in cutting about two hundred acres 
of wheat and grass. The one from your shop I let Mr. John Simms 
have, who cut his wheat, oats and hay, (about seventy-five acres), with 
perfect satisfaction and ease, most of it with two horses, and without 
being obliged to grind the knives. After Mr. Simms finished his har- 
vest he let Mr. James D. Smith, of Island Grove, have it, who cut 
about three hundred acres of grass with it, the machine giving perfect 
satisfaction. Very respectfully yours, 

Edward J. Eno. 

Carrolton, Green Co., III., Dec. 27, 1850. 
I procured one of Mr. Hussey's Reaping and Mowing Machines 
from Baltimore last spring; I cut eighty acres of wheat, and ten acres 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 41 

of oats, and fifty acres of timothy with it, to my entire satisfaction — 
after which I cut sixty acres of cloverseed with it in less than five 
days. I could not have saved the cloverseed without the machine, 
so I consider I saved the whole cost of the machine in'the saving of 
the cloverseed alone. 

Samuel Thomas. 

Springfield, III., Dec. 25, 1850. 
Mr. Obcd Hussey, Balthnorc, Md. 

Dear Sir: — During the harvest of August, 1849, with one of your 
machines I cut sixty acres of Hemp, using a set of 4^ feet knives and 
guards, and two teams of four horses each, changing every two rounds, 
which cut on an average eight acres per day. This last harvest, the 
same single machine, with 6 foot guides and knives,* operated by the 
same force, cut successfully 250 acres of hemp, or from 10 to 12 acres 
per day. From this experience, I take pleasure in recommending 
your Cutters above the hemp cradle and hook, not only as labor-sav- 
ing, by the expedition with which they cut, but as hemp saving, from 
the perfect thoroughness, evenness and nearness to the ground with 
which they do their work, and the regular and collected form in 
which they leave the hemp after being cut. 

Yours respectfully, 

Edward S. Cox. 



Carrolton, Lebanon Co. III. Sept. 1850. 
Mr. 0. Hnsscy: — The four Reaping and Mowing Machines you sent, 
arrived safe and in good order. Their performance far exceeded our 
expectations, the work went on so smoothly that we scarcely knew it 
was hay time and harvest. * * * If your machine had been as 
well known as they are now, you could have sold twenty as well as 
one. Yours, Jonas Ward. 

The few letters which follow, taken from the American Farmer, 
and referring to a still later period, are selected for their brevity, from 
many others, and principally from Maryland and Ohio. It is consid- 
ered unnecessary to extend the list, for the operation and character of 
the machine is too well and too widely known at this day to render it 
necessary to the intelligent farmer and general reader, in any grain 
growing section of the country.f 

*The cutters were lengthened by removing a board that previously reduced the 
cutting space to 4;4 feet in length. 

■fWith the view of determining as far as possible, which was the best Reaping 
and Mowing Machines for the farmer to purchase, the Maryland State Agricultural 
Society in 1852 offered a prize of one hundred dollars, — the largest yet offeretl in the 
country — for the best machine, to be tested by a committee appointed by the Society; 
a large committee of men of the lirst standing in the State, and all large wheat 
growers, was appointed, and extended notice published of the trial to take place 
at "Wye " the seat of Col. Edward Lloyd, Eastern Shore, Md., in July. 

Every effort was made by the Society and Committee to give a fair and satisfac- 



42 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

Harewood, i2mo,8, 1852. 
Having used one of O. Hussey's reaping and Mowing Machines 
during the last harvest (1852) I can state that in cutting Wheat, Oats 
and Cloverseed — also in mowing my crop of grass, it has fully 
answered my expectations, doing the work better than I ever had it 
done by the scythe, and at much less expense. The machine has been 
tested by cutting some fifty to sixty acres of grass — quite suflficient to 
prove its complete adaptation to mowing as well as reaping. 

EDWARD STABLER. 



Wye House, Dec. 20, 1852. 
Dear Sir: — Having worked your Reaper for many years, I have 
fully tested its merits. It has proved itself to be, not only a wheat 
saving implement, but a labor and time saving one — these are all im- 
portant to the farmer. 

It does its work completely, regardless of the position of the wheat, 
if in condition to bind. 

Those you sent me in the spring worked well through the harvest, 
and proved their strength. 

Yours respectfully, 

EDW'D LLOYD. 



Oxford, Md., Dec. 8, 1852. 
Mr. Obed Hussey — Sir: I have used your Reaper with such entire 
satisfaction, that I am but performing a duty to my brother farmers by 
recommending it in the strongest terms. 

For sixteen years I have used a Reaping Machine, and know from 
experience that the most important qualities are j/nv/^/// and simplicity. 
In these respects your machine is superior to any other, and is the 
only one I have seen which can be safely entrusted to the manage- 
ment of ordinary overseers, with negro laborers. 

Yours, &c., 

TENCH TILGHMAN. 



Hayes, Montgomery Co., Md., Dec. ,7, 1852. 
I purchased in the year 185 1 one of Mr. Obed Hussey's Reaping 
Machines — I used it that year and this year in cutting my grain; I was 
pleased with the machine; I consider it a valuable implement, and 
hope never to be without one while I continue to be a farmer. My 
machine was used in cutting wheat and oats — it was not designed for 
grass; I employed it about half the day, and reaped about ten acres of 
land in grain — the rest of the day was devoted to the securing of the 
grain; I used four horses. My machine, I believe, was of the smallest 

tory trial; as the extent of crops in that fine wheat growing region, and extensive 
level face of the country, are unsurpassed anywhere for such an exhibition. 

But two machines were entered for competition, McKeever's and Hussey's. The 
prize was awarded unanimously to Hussey. Why no others could be induced to 
attend, was a matter of surprise at the time, and so remains with many. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 43 

size, and was without front wheels; with wheels it would have been a 
relief to the horses. 

I cannot speak of the relative value of this machine compared with 
others, having never seen any Reaping Machines but Hussey's at work, 
I do not think I could be induced to return to the old mode of cutting 
grain by the scythe and cradle. 

Respectfully vours, &c., 

ROBERT P. DUNLOP. 



Forest Hill, King and Queen Co., Va., 

Dec. 24, 1852. 

Mr. O. Hussey — Sir: It gives me pleasure to state that I used your 
Reaping Machine in my late harvest with great satisfaction. It fully 
equals my expectation as a labor-saving implement, and does the work 
better than can be done by the cradle. I would farther state, that the 
seven which were purchased along with mine for my relations and 
friends of this county, have given in every instance, entire satisfaction. 

Very respectfully, 

WM. D. GRESHAM. 



To the Editor of the Americati Farmer — 

Dear Sir: — Having had a fair opportunity of observing the per- 
formance of Mr. Hussey's celebrated "Reaper" on my farm last season, 
under circumstances peculiarly calculated to test its efificiency, I think 
it not inappropriate to bear my testimony in its favor. 

I finished cutting my grain more than a week ago. The grain was 
not only blown as flat as possible, but was tangled and twisted together, 
and lying in every direction; so much so that it would have been impos- 
sible to cut a large portion of it with the cradle. No one who saw the 
field believed the machine could possibly succeed. 

I take great pleasure in stating that its success was perfect and 
entire. It cut and gathered the grain in the very worst spots almost 
as well as that which was standing; and I was thus enabled to mow my 
crop in about one-half the time the old fashioned method would have 
required, thereby effecting a large pecuniary gain. It cuts the grass 
as evenly and as close as the most expert mower. I need scarcely say 
that I am perfectly satisfied with it. I subscribe myself yours, &c. 

AOUILLA TALBOT. 



Alexandria, Va., i2mo, ii, 1852. 
It gives me much pleasure to state that I have had in use on my farm 
in Montgomery County, Md., for the past two seasons, one of "Hussey's 
Reapers," and its operation has given me e?itire satisfaction in every 
respect. It appears to combine the three qualities so important to the 
farmer, efficiency, durability and economy. I can, with great sincerity, 
recommend its general adoption. 

BENJAMIN HALLOWELL. 



44 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

To Obed Hussey — Dear Sir: — Having used one of your Reapers 
upon land, a great deal of which was hilly, stony and rough; I take 
pleasure in saying that it has given entire satisfaction, and proved to 
be a very durable, well built, and great labor saving machine. 

Respectfully, 

A. B. DAVIS. 
Greenwood, Mont. Co., Md. Dec. 20, 1852. 



PiCK.\WAY County, O., July ist, 185 1. 

1 made an experiment this season in my field, of testing the Mc- 
Cormick and Hussey Reapers. I tried each fairly, and under similar 
circumstances. I am satisfied that Hussey's is decidedly the best 
Reaper, both as to cutting grain and durability. — The objections made 
to Hussey's Reaper by agents and manufacturers of other machines, I 
do not find, upon trial, to exist in any one particular. 

WM. STAGE. 

We, the undersigned present at the trial, concur in Mr. Stage's 
statement: — Z. Pritchett, John Reber, Philip Stuart, Isaac Stage, John 
Hogeland, Michael Eyer. 



Salem Tp. Champaign Co. O. July, 1851. 
I have worked with McCormick and Hussey's Reapers three sea- 
sons, and unqualifiedly pronounce Hussey's the best machine. It 
cuts cleaner and faster, and leaves the grain in better order on the 
ground; and this is the opinion of every hand in giving an expression 
of the comparative merits of the two machines. 

THOS. OUTRAM. 



Union Township, Champaign County, O., ) 

July,i85i. f 
I have for the past four seasons worked Hussey's Reaper, and 
unhesitatingly pronounce it vastly superior to McCormick's or any 
other Reaper I have seen used. 

WILLIAM T. ZOMBRO. 



Salem Township, Champaign County, O., 

July, 185 1. 

I have had Hussey's Reaper used on my farm. — It will cut 20 acres 
of the heaviest wheat per day, with ease. I consider it far superior to 
the McCormick Reaper. JOSHUA BUFFINGTON. 

Ross County, Ohio, July, 185 1. 
I have used Hussey's Reaper,and consider it an invaluable machine. 
I have seen McCormick's Reaper operate, and am of opinion that 
Hussey's is the best machine. 

D. M'CONNELL. 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 45 

Union Township, Champaign County, O., 

Aug., 1851. 

I have used Hussey's Reaper for four years. 1 prefer it to every 
other machine. I do not have to drive fast, and the raking is the 
easiest work in the f^eld. JOHN EARSOM. 

Salem Township, Champaign County, O., 

Aug., 1851. 

I bought a Hussey Reaper this season, and it has given the best 
satisfaction. I cut wheat that was down as badly as any I ever saw. 
It operated well by driving in a slow walk. My hands would rather 
rake than bind. JOHN LEE. 

Union Township, Champaign County, O., ) 

July, 1851. f 
I have used for five years Hussey's Reaper. It is a labor and grain 
saving machine. It is a much better machine than McCormick's, in 
several particulars; it is more substantial, not so liable to injury, and 
will cut faster and cleaner. I cut this season, with three horses, sixteen 
acres of heavy wheat, in five hours and thirty minutes. 

REZIN C. WILSON. 

Bergen, Sept. i, 1851. — This is to certify that I have for three 
seasons used one of Hussey's Reaping Machines, which I purchased 
at the Gennesee Seed Store, and that it gives perfect satisfaction. I 
have cut my wheat when it was very badly lodged, much faster, better 
and cheaper than it could have been done in any other way. I had 
one of McCormick's, but left it in the road, a useless article, as I con- 
sider it; having tried for three years to use it without success. 

I consider Hussey's machine just the thing for our farmers, and I 
could not now, after having proved its merits, be induced to be with- 
out one. ^ NOAH WILSON. 

With a few general remarks as to the reputation of Reaping 
Machines in England, and on the authority of the annexed English 
publications, we take leave of the subject. 

At the trial for which the "Great Council Medal" was awarded, but 
which no practical farmer in this country would consider as any trial 
at all, being merely the attempt to cut a small space in green and wet 
grain, and during the temporary absence of Hussey, his machine was 
operated by ignorant laborers of the "Chrystal Palace," and who had 
never before seen a reaping machine. 

This did not satisfy the English farmers; complaints were soon 
heard of injustice, partiality, and unfairness. It compelled C. H. Mc- 
Cormick or his agents to offer a challenge, which was promptly 
accepted by Hussey; and before the Cleveland Agricultural Society a 
tolerably fair trial was had of the rival machines, though neither the 
grain or ground was then in a suitable state. For the decision of 



46 BRIEF NARRATIVE OF THE 

twelve prominent men and practical farmers, we refer to the annexed 
English account for the complete triumph of the unmedalled machine. 

In an interview with an extensive agricultural implement maker of 
Yorkshire — himself an inventor of many valuable implements, and to 
no small extent a rival — he spoke of Obed Hussey as a man who con- 
ferred honor on his own country; as well by his genius and talents, as 
by his integrity of character. This feeling was alike honorable to the 
gentleman who gave it expression, and just to an American citizen. 

Obed Hussey is perhaps the only American who ever waved the 
"Stars and Stripes" on the soil of England, [placed there too, at dif- 
ferent times, on his machine, by Englis]uncn\ or who could do it with- 
out a strong feeling of envy and jealousy being engendered. Even 
Englishmen, jealous as they are known to be, viewed Hussey as a 
public benefactor, and his mission as one calculated either directly or 
indirectly to benefit all classes. Yet in his own country, which he has 
so signally benefitted, he is compelled to supplicate for years, and 
as yet in vain, for rights, that others, with not a tithe of his claim and 
merit, but with more ample means perhaps, or more influential friends, 
succeed in obtaining. It is a reproach to the age and to the Halls of 
Legislation. When it was supposed this great invention was perfected 
in England, many years ago — though 7iot successful, as was subse- 
quently proved — the Nation took the matter in hand,and Parliament 
voted a reward to its author. 

At the great Agricultural Exhibition for "Bath and the West of 
England," held at Plymouth in 1853, the Plymouth Mail states: ["the 
interest and excitement created by the trial of Reaping Machines was 
very great, and the crowd of persons assembled to witness their per- 
formance was immense"] — that Hussey won the prize for Reaping, by 
acclamation, over all competitors — the only other American machine 
present, McCormick's included; and an eye witness states that three 
cheers were proposed for Mr. Hussey by Sir Thomas Ackland, the 
President, and member of Parliament, which was responded to by 
thousands, and without a dissenting voice; that his reaper was crowned 
with laurel by the Judges, and the "stars and stripes" waved in triumph 
twenty-five feet high over American ingenuity and enterprise on Eng- 
lish soil. 

At this trial it was again demonstrated to the agriculturists of 
Great Britain by Obed Hussey, [and not for the first time, though he 
was \\v& first to do it], that his machine would cut their grass quite as 
perfectly as their "corn." The Mail goes on to say: "A mowing 
machine was so remote from the expectations and hopes of the Society, 
that no prize was offered for one; yet Mr. Hussey was prepared with 
a mowing machine, which was taken to an adjoining field of meadow 
grass and clover mixed. The people followed, but evidently with no 
expectation of being gratified. The machine mower was put inaction, 
and to the admiration of every one, it cut the grass with an evenness 
and precision which is truly surprising, being more close and even 
than a scythe. The grass left behind the machine was quite evenly 
spread, and where it was not so, it lay so light and open that the use 



INVENTION OF REAPING MACHINES. 47 

of the tending machine was scarcely necessary. The admiration of 
the truly astonishing performance was universal. 

The cutting the rye was looked for, but mowing the grass took 
every one by surprise. Thus, a great desideratum has been achieved; 
the farmer has now only to gear up his horses and take a ride through 
his meadow, and his grass is cut." 

Again, at the Royal Agricultural Society's Exhibition, held at Lin- 
coln, the present season, the Mark Lane Express states that Hussey's 
machine won the prize over all competitors; and admits that Bell's 
machine was "at last fairly beaten." 

Is there an Amcrica7i who can read these accounts who does not 
feel indebted to the man who, solely by his own perseverance and skill, 
has added lustre to his country's renown in the peaceful walks of life? 
If the same man, as a "warrior in hostile array," had raised the same 
flag in triumph on the same soil, how would his countrymen have 
rewarded him? Doubtless by a "vote of thanks by both Houses of 
Congress," together with a sword and gold medal, if not a monument 
in addition! 

Should not those be equally honored and rewarded by the Country, 
who are engaged in the arts and in agriculture; who devote their 
energies to add to the comfort and happiness of their fellow man, as 
those engaged in shedding blood, making widows and orphans to 
mourn for their untimely bereavement, and who literally for hire, not 
patriotism, and with the spirit demons, seek to slay and destroy? 

We fully believe so; for fame and renown in arms are rarely or 
never acquired, except by entailing misery and distress on our fellow 
beings, and engendering the worst feelings and passions of our 
nature. 

But we hope for the advent of better days; when, if the political 
sword is not literally beaten into a plough-share, and the partizan spear 
turned into a pruning hook, the inventive genius and talent of our coun- 
trymen shall be more aided and better rewarded by Government, in its 
praiseworthy efforts "for the diffusion of knowledge among men," in 
all that really ennobles the mind, and benefits the whole human family. 
Such, at least, is the earnest wish and desire of 

A Farmer and Mechanic. 



HUSSEY'S 

REAPING AND MOWING MACHINE 

IN ENOLAND. 



In presenting the following pages for consideration of the farmers 
of the country, the subscriber has confined himself strictly to matters 
selected from English papers, which will speak for itself. As a short 
explanation from me will be looked for, I will merely state, that at the 
trial in presence of the Exhibition Jury, Mr. McCormick's machine 
was operated by an experienced hand sent from the United States, 
while mine was managed by English laborers of the lower class, who 
were total strangers to it, and had never seen it in operation. The 
trial was made in unripe wheat on a rainy day. My machine was 
very improperly adjusted for the work and wrongly put together, in 
consequence of which the ignorant raker failed to deliver the sheaves, 
and it stopped as a matter of course, and was immediately laid aside, 
after cutting but a few feet. My machine was never tried in presence 
of that Jury by any other hands, or in any other condition, myself not 
being in England. 

It was on such a trial that the Exhibition medal was disposed of, 
and with what justice the reader can judge by reading the following 
pages. On my arrival in England I took my machine into the field 
that it might work its way into public favor, as it best could. After 
being exhibited in several places, its rising fame appeared to produce 
some effect, as it will appear by the following in the Windsor and 
Eaton Express, of Nov. 8, 1851: 

Alluding to the astonishing and unexpected performance of my 
Reaper, it says: — By this 7i/iIooked for turn of events, the proprietors of 
M' CorDiiek's macJiine found tliat their supref)U7cy zvas 710 longer luuiisputed, 
and that the necessity zvas laid tipon them to look to their laurels ; tJiey there- 
fore came boldly foricard, and threzv down the gauntlet.' /" 

That farmers who are acquainted with my reaper may understand 
why it failed to perform well in the hands of strangers at the Exhibi- 
tion trial where McCormick got the medal, It will be necessary for 
me to say, that when the machine was sent from Baltimore it was set 
to cut high. That when the inexperienced hands undertook to make 
it cut low, they pitched down the cutters by putting on the tongue, 
not knowing any other way to lower it. In doing so the hind part of 
the platform was of course raised high. In this condition the unprac- 
ticed raker failed to push the heavy wet wheat off up an inclined plane; 
and as a matter of course the machine choaked, and for the same 

48 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 49 

reason that a mill will choak when the corn goes in faster than the meal 
comes out. A skillful hand would have lowered the cut at the axle of 
the machine, and brought the platform horizontal or lowest at the rear, 
as it should be in cutting wet grain. 

The following pages will show the result, the authenticity of which, 
if doubted, will be proved by the production of the originals in my 
possession. OBED HUSSEY. 

Baltimore, Md., Jan. i, 1852. 



From the Hull \_ England^ Advertiser, Sept. 5, 185 1. 

At the annual meeting on Mr. Mechi's Farm at Tiptree Heath, a 
few weeks ago, a brief report of which appeared in the Hull Adver- 
tiser at the time, several reaping machines were tested, the result then 
being that one manufactured and invented by Mr McCormick, of 
America, was the only one which was considered to have done its 
work properly. Amongst those tried, was one invented and manu- 
factured by Mr. O. Hussey, Baltimore, Md. (U.S.) which in the opinion 
of gentlemen then present, did not fully accomplish the object in view. 
It should, however be mentioned, that while Mr. McCormick's machine 
had on that trial the advantage of the superintendence of persons inti- 
mately acquainted with its mechanism, and who had been accustomed 
to the working of the machine for some years, Mr. Hussey's invention 
was (in the absence of the inventor) in the hands of persons entirely 
unacquainted with the proper mode of working it. Since then Mr. 
Hussey himself has come over to England, in order to superintend his 
machine, and the result has been that it is now brought out to receive 
a thorough trial of its merits, 

The trial of Wednesday, however, was the best. It took place in a 
field belonging to Mr. Coskill, Grovehill Lane, Beverly. There was 
assembled durmg the day a great number of farmers and gentlemen 
interested in agriculture, who witnessed the trial with great interest. 

The wheat in this case was very much "laid;" indeed in many 
places it was almost flat on the ground. It therefore afforded one of 
the best opportunities for judging of the capabilities of the machine 
under disadvantageous circumstances that could possibly occur. 

On the whole, the conclusion come to was, that the reaping was 
done as well by machine as by hand. No one doubted for a moment 
that it would cut corn well where it was standing; but some farmers 
thought it would not equal the scythe where the corn was laid. The 
result, however, showed the contrary, and every person acknowledged 
that it had succeeded admirably. After cutting a large quantity of 
wheat, the machine was taken into another field, and after a slight 
alteration, set to work to cut clover. We understand that on the day 
before previous to coming to Hull, it had been tried on clover and cut 
it extremely well. 

As the machine cut along it was followed closely by groups of 
farmers striving hard to find flaws in its performance. But they could 
not. On the contrary, in those places where the corn was most "laid," 
4 



50 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

and where, consequently, the greatest difficulty must occur in the cut- 
tingt the manner in which the reaper did its work elicited their loudest 
approbation; — "Why," said one burly old gentleman by our side, "a 
man with a scythe could never cut it like that." " It is wonderful," said 
another. 



Fro7n the Morning Advertiser, Sept. 12, 185 1. 

On Monday last, the public trial of Hussey's patent Reaping 
Machine took place with the permission of his Grace, the Duke of 
Marlborough, on his Grace's estate of Blenheim, near Woodstock, 
Oxfordshire, and also, on the adjoining one of Mr. Southern, one of 
the most considerable landed proprietors of the country. A large 
assemblage of the Agriculturists of the highest class attracted by the 
celebrity which this ingenious and efficient contrivance has acquired for 
itself in a course of successful experiments performed last week in York- 
shire, were present to witness the trial, mostly from Oxfordshire and 
the adjoining counties, but many from a considerable distance, and all 
of them concurred in the most ready acknowledgments of its 
advantages. 

The reaping commenced at eleven o'clock in the barley field, the 
machine being drawn by two fine chestnut horses, lent by his Grace 
for the purpose of the experiment, in which he took the deepest inter- 
est, following the reaper in a car, and watching with evident satisfac- 
tion, the ease and rapidity with which the blades cut down the golden 
produce of the field. The crop was by no means one calculated to 
favor the experiment. On the contrary, some of it was down and 
much laid. It was cut down, however, with great regularity and speed, 
and the general evenness of the stubble was the subject of general 
remark. As the machine passed on, hewing its way at a smart pace 
through the dense mass of stalks, the crowd of eager observers rushed 
after it, and many were the cheers with which it was welcomed. Occa- 
sionally, to satisfy the ideas of the more fastidious, the level of the 
cutters was changed, so as to leave a greater or less length of stubble, 
and it was evident to all that in this respect the machine was suscepti- 
ble of the nicest adjustment. Sometimes at the end of a turn it was 
rested to give the farmers an opportunity of inspecting it, which they 
seemed nevertired of doing, and then it was turned round at right angles 
to cut in the cross direction. In the experiments upon barley, it 
showed itself capable of reaping the enormous space of 15 acres, which 
we believe is from eight to nine times the power of the most vigorous 
and skillful reaper. Afterwards the machine was taken into a large 
field of clover, which it cut to within two inches of the ground, and 
with still greater rapidity. 

His Grace repeatedly expressed his admiration of the powers of 
the apparatus, and congratulated some of the agricultural gentlemen 
present with him on the prospects of greater economy and security in 
harvesting which it afforded them. — These opinions were generally 
entertained upon fhe ground, and yesterday at Bishop's Startford, in 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 51 

Hartfordshire, the farmers of that part of the country witnessed a sim- 
ilar experiment, attended with results precisely similar, and which gave 
them the same satisfaction. 



The following Testimonial was given by the Duke of Marlborough: 

Tuesday, September gth, 185 1. 

Having yesterday, witnessed the working of the American Reaping 
Machine, patented by Mr. Hussey, and being requested to give my 
opinion upon its execution, I state that it performed its work admira- 
bly, laying the corn when cut very neatly for tying up, and leaving the 
stubble very regular. MARLBOROUGH. 

Following upon these various successes, an advertisement from the 
proprietors of McCormick's Machine, appeared in the public papers, 
as follows: 

MR. M'CORMICK'S AMERICAN REAPER. 

Public Challenge to Makers and Venders of Reaping Machines. — 
We, the undersigned, agents for Mr. McCormick, having observed 
sundry advertisements and circulars complaining of the decision of the 
Jurors of the Great Exhibition of 185 1 in favor of Mr. McCormick's 
Reaper, and of the reports given in the public journals of the trials 
which led to such decision, do hereby give notice to Messrs. Wm. Dray 
& Co., Messrs. Garrett & Son, Mr. O. Hussey, and all other makers and 
venders of Reaping Machines whatsoever, that M'CORMICK'S 
REAPER will be tried at the Cleveland Society's Show at Marton, 
Middlesboro, near Stockton-on-Tees, on the 25th inst., and publicly 
CHALLENGE them or any of them, to meet us there, with their 
machines, for the purpose of a comparative trial of the respective 
merits of each, to be determined by the Chairman and Council of the 
Cleveland Society, or by such Judge or Judges as the said Society may 
appoint. BURGP3SS & KEY, 103, Newgate-street, London. 

The Challenge was immediately accepted. 

MR. HUSSEY'S AMERICAN REAPER. 

" In answer to an advertisement which appeared in the Times of 
the i8th, from Messrs. Burgess & Key, giving us a PUBLIC CHAL- 
LENGE, to a TRIAL of the AMERICAN REAPING MACHINES, 
we hereby announce that we shall willingly ACCEPT the SAME, and 
on the 25th inst., we shall be prepared at the Cleveland Society's Show, 
Marton, Middlesborough, near Stockton-on-Tees, to prove to the 
Agricultural World, the superiority of HUSSEY'S REAPER, for gen- 
eral farming purposes. We stipulate, however, that the Machines shall 
be tested, not only on a particular patch of good upstanding grain, where 
they might, perhaps, prove equal, but on an average variety of condi- 
tion, as to short and laid corn, &c., such as the farmer vyill usually meet 
with. Its capabilities for cutting green crops, such as clover, &c., shall 
also be proved. It must be evident to the Farming Public, that the 
Reaping Machine which will cut a crop of the greatest variety and 



62 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

difference of condition must possess the greatest merit. WM. DRAY 
& CO., Agricultural Warehouse, Swan-Lane, London Bridge. 

Accordingly the matter was arranged, and the following gentlemen 
were called upon to act as jurors: 

Henry Stephen Thompson, Esq., of Moat Hall, Forema?i; Mr. Wm. 
Lister of Dunsa Bank; Mr. Jno, Booth of Killerby; Mr. John Parring- 
ton, of Brancepeth; Mr. Wm. Wetherell, of Kirkbridge, Darlington; 
Mr. Rob't Hymers, of Marton; Mr. Christopher Cobson, Linthorpe; 
Mr Rob't Fawcitt, of Ormsby; Mr. Joseph Parrington, of Cross Beck; 
Mr. John Outhwaite, of Bainesse; Mr. Geo. Reed, Hutton Lowcross; 
Mr. Thomas Phillips, of Helmsley, and Mr. Thomas Outhwaite, of 
Bainesse. 

The following were the conditions to be submitted by the repre- 
sentatives of the respective machines: 

" The machines to be tried on wheat and barley in such order, and 
for such lengths of time, as the jurymen may direct. The jury to have 
full power to use any means they deem advisable, in order to put the 
machines to the severest trial. The jury in deciding on the merits of 
the two machines; to take into their consideration: 

1st. Which of the two cuts corn in the best manner. 

2d. " " causes the least waste 

3d. " " does the most work in a given time. 

4th. " " leaves the corn in the best order for gathering 

and binding. 

5th. " " is the best adapted for the ridge and furrow. 

6th. " " is the least liable to get out of order. 

7th. " " at first cost is least price. 

8th. " " requires the least amount of horse labor. 

9th. " " which requires the least amount of manual 

labor. 

As no report was made of the trial on the first day, the following 
may be relied upon: 

Fro?n the Gateshead Observer — September 2'jth, 185 1. 

It was curious to see on the soil of a Cleveland Farm, two imple- 
ments of agriculture lying side by side in rivalry, respectively marked 
— " M'Cormick, inventor, Chicago, Illinois," — " Hussey, inventor, Bal- 
timore, Maryland " — America competing with America, on English soil. 

Mr. Hussey led off. An attempt was made to keep back the eager 
crowd; but their curiosity was irrepressible — they flocked in upon the 
machine so that the experiment could not be properly performed, nor 
could the jury duly discharge their duties.— P. C. Thompson did his 
very best — he was all but everywhere at once; but what avails a police- 
force, 07ie strong, against a concourse of Yorkshire yeomanry and 
clowns? It was requisite that he should have recruits; and a body of 
self-elected "specials" came to his aid, who succeeded in procuring 
approach to a clear course. Mr. Hussey then took his seat anew, 
and his machine cut down a breadth of wheat from end to end of the 
field. It seemed to us to do its work neatly and well. The wheat was 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 53 

cle\'erly delivered from the teeth of the reaper, and handed over to the 
binders by the rake. 

[ To William Dray and Company. ] 

Stockton-on-Tees, September 27th, 185 1. 
Sir, — Having been in communication with you relative to the trial 
of your Reaper against M'Cormick's, and feeling deeply interested in 
the introduction of the new Implement into this district, particularly 
one of so much importance as a Reaping Machine, I think it is not 
probably out of place in me if I give you the result of my observations 
during the two trials which have taken place. From the fact that 
M'Cormick's Machine obtained the prize at the Great Exhibition 
(though I do not pin* my faith upon awards made by Agricultural and 
other societies,) the letter of Mr. Pusey's, in the Royal Agriadtural 
Society s Journal, the various newspaper reports, &c.. &c.; it was natural 
for me to be predisposed in favor of M'Cormick's Machine; indeed 
Mr. M. had a prestage in his favor, which of course operated against 
the " Little Hussey." Previous to starting, at Marton, on Thursday,, 
the gentlemen representing M'Cormick's machine expressed them- 
selves desirous of testing the machines early in the morning when the 
dew was on, believing that their machine would cut the grain under 
such circumstances, and that yours would not. Well, on Thursday we 
had a deluge rain, the surface of the land was very soft, and the corn 
very wet. Everybody there was astonished to see your machine 
brought up the field at a trot, cutting its way to the admiration of all 
present; it not only cut to the leaning corn, but it cut cross over the 
corn leaning to the left of the postillion, (I presume I must call him.) 
McCormick's machine then attonpted to start (he made two or three 
attempts) but the attendant confessed it was impossible to do so. 
That there might be no mistake about it, your representatives pro- 
posed that their machines should go up again; the jury said " No! we 
are satisfied that your machine can cut it under the present circum- 
stances," and so ended Thursday's trial. 

Fro7n the Gate si le ad Observer, October 4. 

We left the members and friends of this society, on Friday, the 
26th ult., on the Show-ground at Middlesbrough, immersed in rain. 
The scene now shifta to the Townhall — where, in a handsome and 
spacious apartment, we find them assembled in the evening, to dinner, 
to the number of 150, with the Earl of Zetland in the Chair, and in 
the vice-chair Mr. John Vaughan, of the firm of Bolckow & Vaughan, 
iron-masters and manufacturers. His lordship was supported by the 
Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birimngham, and Messrs. J. T. Wharton, 
Henry Pease, G. D. Trotter, Isaac Wilson, George Coates, J. W. Pease, 
George Reade, John Pierson, &c.; and the vice-chair by Messrs. C. 
Dryden, W. Fallows, R. Chilton, &c. In the body of the hall were 
the leading inhabitants of the town and neighborhood; also, Mr. 
Burgess and Mr. Samuelson (who had come to the meeting with Mr. 



54 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

McCormick's reaping machine), Mr. Hussey, the inventor of the 
reaper which bears his name, and Mr. Pierce and Mr. Stevens (on the 
part of Messrs. Dray & Co., Agents for Mr. Hussey.) . 

On the removal of the cloth, the noble Chairman — (behind whose 
seat was inscribed on the wall in conspicuous characters, " Success to 
the Cleveland Agricultural Society — Eighteenth Anniversary " — gave 
the customary loyal toasts, and took occasion to observe, that had it 
not been for the Exhibition of Industry, projected by Prince Albert, 
the *' Reaping Machine," from w^hich he anticipated great benefits to 
agriculture, would not have been introduced into this country. 
(Applause.) 

The Earl of Zetland again referred to the reaping machine. Such 
an aid to agriculture, his lordship observed, was, needed in Cleveland 
and elsewhere. 

Mr. J. T. Wharton, of Skelton Castle, said he had never witnessed 
so much enthusiasm in an agricultural district as was displayed in con- 
nection with the reaping machine. Had the day been fine the num- 
ber of spectators present yesterday (Thursday) would have been at 
*least fourfold what it was. Bad as the weather was, not only was 
there a large muster of members of the society, but 803 persons, many 
of them from a considerable distance paid sixpence each for admis- 
sion to the ground. — The trial of the rival machines was, unfortunately, 
so short, and conducted under such adverse circumstances, that it was 
impossible to pronounce any opinion as to their relative merits; but 
what he saw of Hussey 's was as satisfactory as he could expect. 
(Applause.) 

Mr. George Reade, of Hutton Lowcross, said, had it not been for 
the boisterous weather, the receipts of the society at Ormesby and 
Middlesbrough would have been marvellous. As it was, there was a 
large assemblage to witness the trial of the American reaping ma- 
chines, and they were regarded with an anxious desire that they might 
succeed. Indeed, let any ingenious mechanic — he cared not whether 
he was English, Scotch, Irish, American, or German — come before a 
jury of the farmers of Cleveland with an implement or machine for 
the improvement of Agriculture, and it would be judged with candor, 
impartiality and uprightness, and the inventor should go home satis- 
fied that he had experienced fair play. (Applause.) 

Mr. Isaac Wilson proposed the health of "The Strangers." To 
those gentlemen the members were greatly indebted for their attend- 
ance. Had the weather permitted, they would all have experienced 
much pleasure from an inspection of the celebrated reaping machines 
in action, and the ingenious draining plough of Mr. Fowler, which did 
him very much credit. (The toast was drank with musical honors.) 

Mr. Pierce, the representative of Dray & Co.. being called upon to 
respond, rose and said, bad as the weather had been, he had been de- 
lighted with his visit to Middlesbrough. The kindness of the inhab- 
itants soon made him no stranger. He was not four and twenty hours 
in the place before he fraternized with the whole parish. (Laughter.) 
He rejoiced that Mr. Hussey's reaping machine was now in the hands 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 55 

of a jury of Cleveland farmers. It would have a fair, honest, impar- 
tial trial; and what more could an Englishman desire. (Applause.) 
He thanked the company for the honor which they had conferred upon 
their visitors from a distance, and wished continued 'success to their 
flourishing society. (Applause.) 

Mr. Hussey was next called upon, and said that he had for many 
years been building machines in America. If he had had the least 
idea of the interest which England would take in the reaping of crops 
by machinery, it would have been a difficult thing to keep him on the 
other side of the Atlantic; and he knew not, now, after the reception 
which he had met with, how he should ever get home again. (Ap- 
plause and lairghter.) 

Mr. Steevens, Dray & Co.'s engineer, was also called upon to rise, 
and stated that his employers had purchased Mr. Hussey's machine 
because they saw it to be the best, and they would meet every com- 
petitor in the three kingdoms, fearless of the result. (Cheers.) 

[It should be stated that Messrs. Fowler, Burgess, Samuelson,* &c., 
had by this time left the hall, and therefore could not be called upon.] 

Mr. Parrington, having read the award, announced that a second 
trial of McCormick's and Hussey's reaping machines would be made, 
if the weather w-ere favorable, on the following morning (Saturday), 
at 9 o'clock, at Mr. Fawcitt's farm. — The jury, appointed by the com- 
mittee, would give no opinion on the trial of the previous day (Thurs- 
day.) That would go for nothing. They would devote the whole of 
next day, if necessary, to a full, fair, and satisfactory trial of the two 
machines. (Applause.) 

On Saturday morning, the weather w^as so far favorable that there 
was no rain. The trial, therefore, took place. There was a numerous 
gathering of land-owners, farmers, laborers, &c., but not so crowded a 
muster as to obstruct the experiment. 

The foreman of the jury, Mr. Thompson, being unavoidably absent, 
his place was supplied by the Rev. W. F. Wharton, of Birmingham. 
Messrs. Lister, Outhwaite, (J. and T. P.) Booth, Wetherell, Phillips, 
and Dobson, were also absent. Their places were filled by Mr. Will- 
iam Morley, Dishforth; Mr. Thomas Parrington, Marton; Mr. J. T. 
Wharton, Shelton Castle; Mr. Wm. Hill, Staunton; Mr. Joseph Coul- 
son, Sexhow; Mr. Joseph Harrison, White House; Mr. John Mason 
Hopper, Marton. 

The trial commenced in a level enclosure, adjoining the road from 
Stockton and Middlesbrough to Ormesby Hall, (the residence of Sir 
Wm. Pennyman, Bart.) The wheat was laid. We have seen a crop in 
worse condition, but not often. The straw was damp and soft. The 
soil was loamy and light, and the field free from w-et; it was to Mr. 
Fawcitt's credit that he was able to place such a field at the service of 
the society under the circumstances; still, the earth was in a state to 
clog the w^heels of the reapers. Altogether, the test was a severe one 
for the competitors. Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Burgess, and Mr. D. C. 

*McCormick's agents. 



56 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

Mackenzie, (the son of an emigrant from Ivernesse) were in charge of 
Mr. McCormick's Machine. The other was in the hands of the in- 
ventor himself, Mr. Hussey, and of Mr. Pierce and Mr. Steevens (who 
represented the agents, Messrs. Dray & Co.) 

The Rev. Mr. Wharton, (the jury, competitors, &c. having gath- 
ered round him on the field, on Saturday morning,) announced that, 
after the lapse of an hour, when the corn would be in such a condition 
that Mr. Fawcitt, as he had just said, would, under ordinary circum- 
stances, reap it himself, the trial would commence. 

The question was, now, which of the two machines should begin. 
A " toss " gave the chance to Mr. Pierce, and he requested Mr. Burgess 
to lead off. 

M'Cormick's machine then got into action, taking the crop in the 
most favorable manner — that is, leaning toward the knife. Passing 
along the field, (which was from two to three hundred yards in length,) 
it cut down a breadth of little more than four feet. The corn being 
laid, the flier, of course did not come into practical operation; nor was 
it necessary that it should do so — the elements having already done 
its work. The corn was well cut — the stubble a little too high. 

Another breadth or two having been cut, Hussey's machine 
followed, and cut some breadths — somewhat wider than M'Cormick's, 
and closer to the ground. 

Mackenzie, when we pointed out the shorter stubble of his rival, 
admitted the fact, but said there would be no difficulty — not the 
slightest — in bringing Mr. M'Cormick's knife nearer to the ground. 
In America, however, where the straw is comparatively of little or no 
value, the stubble is no object, and there are some advantages in cut- 
ting high. 

A backer of M'Cormick's machine (and many bets have been laid 
on the two machines) urged that Hussey's would spoil clover when 
going amdng wheat. The reply was, that Hussey's knife could be 
raised or depressed at pleasure. 

The next test was cutting the crop across ridge and furrow, so that 
the corn was lying neither to nor from the knife, but sidewise. Both 
the machines cut the corn under these circumstances — Hussey's the 
cleaner of the two. 

The jury then required the experiment to be made along the field, 
with the corn lying from the knife. 

Mr. Hussey consented, and the machine succeeded in cutting the 
corn — leaving a tolerabie stubble, but not so short and regular as 
before. 

McCormick's machine was then tried, and failed. As it scoured 
over the corn, making sad havock, there were loud cries of "Stop! stop! 
you're wasting it!" 

Barley was next cut, with much the same result. In this case, Mr. 
Hussey adjusted his platform for discharging the corn at the side. 

The binders being summoned before the jury, and asked which of 
the two machines they preferred, so far as their particular department 
was concerned — decided, 4 for M'Cormick's, 6 for Hussey's. 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 57 

Clover was now to be tried, but at this stage of the proceedings we 
left the field. Clover-cutting, we should state, formed no part of the 
competition. The agreement merely refers to wheat and barley. 
M'Cormick's machine is not intended for clover-cutting; but some of 
the land owners and farmers were anxious to see clover cut by Hus- 
sey's machine. Mr. Thompson, we understand, had requested his 
proxy to have the experiment made. We were told on the ground 
that the machine had already been tried on clover at Newport, near 
Middlesbrough, and "cut it well: — If the weather had been dry, it 
would have cut it beautifully." 

It was pleasant to mark the anxiety and watchfulness of the gentle- 
men in charge of the two machines. Mr. M'Cormick suffered no loss 
from his absence, he was so admirably represented; and in Messrs. 
Pierce and Steevens, Dray & Co. had invaluable agents — on the Thurs- 
day in particular, when a storm, which ravaged land and sea, could not 
deter them or Mr. Hussey, from practically attesting the reaper's 
prowess in the field. The trial, throughout, was conducted with a 
fidelity to self which would not throw a point away, and a courtesy to 
rivals which should ever mark honorable competition. 

\^Fro}n a Correspondent.^^ 

Stockton, Monday, September 29. — A report reached me, after I 
left the farm, that Hussey's machine cut the barley very much better 
than M'Cormick's. It came to me however, through parties who 
might fairly be suspected of a bias, and therefore I kept my judgment 
in suspense until I could obtain information on which I could more 
implicitly rely. This I have now got. I have been to the farm again 
to-day, and made inquiries of persons who saw the completion of the 
trial. M'Cormick's machine did not cut the barley so well as Hussey's. 
It cut it much too high; and as the crop was very much laid, the heads 
only, in many cases were cut off. We had Hussey's machine in oper- 
ation to-day, both on barley and wheat, and made better work than 
on Saturday. Mr. Fawcitt worked it with the greatest ease. I think 
he would soon beat the inventor himself. Even I, townsman as I am, 
made fair work; and in an hour or two's practice, I would engage to 
cut a crop in a manner not to be found fault with. You may safely 
say that any ordinary workman about a farm would be able to manage 
the machine; and when I say this of Hussey's, it is also true of M'Cor- 
mick's. The one may be a better machine than the other, but the 
merits of either of them may be brought into practical action by a la- 
borer of average intelligence and skill. It is the opinion of farmers 
and others with whom I have conversed, that the saving per acre, by 
the use of Hussey's machine, would be about 5s. 

At the close of the contest on Saturday, the knives of the two ma- 
chines were placed in the hands of Mr. Robinson, engineer to Mr. 
Bellerby, of York, that he might report thereon, and on the machinery 
generally, to the Jury. 

Wednesday, October i. — The Marquis of Londonderry, and several 



58 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

other gentlemen, hav'e visited Mr. Fawcitt's farm, to see the machine 
at work. 

The laurels so recently placed upon the brow of Mr. M'Cormick, 
have been plucked off — not wholly, but in great part — by his fellow 
countryman, Mr. Hussey. 

We would enlarge upon this theme, but our report has left us little 
room. We would only say, that while the farmers of Cleveland, and 
of the Island generally, are turning their attention to agricultural im- 
provement—by reaping machines, draining ploughs, and steam ploughs 
— we would say to them, in the words of Mr. Hussey to the Cleve- 
land horse-jockey, when his machine was ready for its work — " Now, 

THEN, GO ahead!" 



REPORT OF THE JURY. 

" The Jury regret exceedingly the most unfavorable state of the 
weather on the days of trial, (a perfect hurricane raging during the 
whole of the first day,) and their consequent inability to make so full 
and satisfactory a trial as they could have wished. 

"The Machines were tested on a crop of Wheat, computed at 25 
bushels per acre, very short in the Straw, and if possible, more laid 
than the Wheat. 

" The Jury, taking the different points submitted to their consider- 
ation, in the order as mentioned: — 

"I. — Their unanimous opinion, that Mr. Hussey's Machine, as ex- 
hibited by Messrs. Wm. Dray & Co., cut the corn in the best manner, 
especially across ridge and furrow, and when the machine was work- 
ing in the direction of the corn laid. 

" 2. — By a majority of eleven to one, that Mr. Hussey's Machine 
caused the least waste. 

" 3. — Taking the breadth of the two machines into consideration, 
that of Mr. Hussey did most work. 

"4. — That Mr. Hussey's Machine leaves the cut corn in the best 
order for gathering and binding. This question was submitted to the 
laborers employed on the occasion, and decided by them, as above, by 
a majority of 6 to 4. 

" 5. — Their unanimous opinion that Mr. Hussey's Machine is best 
adapted for ridge and furrow. 

" 6. — This question was referred by the Jury to Mr. Robinson, fore- 
man to Messrs. Bellerby, of York, a practical Mechanic of acknowl- 
edged ability, whose report is appended below. 

" 7. — That Mr. Hussey's Machine at first cost is less price. 

"8,9. — The Jury decline to express a decided opinion on these 
points in consequence of the state of the weather. 

" The trials took place on the farm of Robert Fawcitt, of Ormsby, 
near Marlbro'-on-Tees, \vh6 in the most liberal and disinterested spirit 
allowed his crops to be trodden down and damaged to a very great 
extent, especially on the 25th, when in spite of the storm an immense 
crowd assembled to witness the trials. 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 59 

"The Jury cannot conclude their Report, without expressing the 
great pleasure they have derived from seeing two Machines brought 
into competition, that were able to do such very good work, and also 
at witnessing the friendly, straightforward, and honorable way in 
which the Exhibitors of the respective Machines met on this occasion. 
Signed on behalf of the Jury, 

W. F. WHARTON, Foreman. 



Mr. Robinson s Report on Question 6. 

Having carefully examined both machines, and given the subject 
due consideration, I am of opinion that M'Cormick's Reaping Ma- 
chine, as at present made, is most liable to get out of order. 

(Signed,) THOMAS ROBINSON. 

York, loth September, 1851. 

\^Froni the London Mercantile Jonrnal.^ 

The Great Exhibition and Transatlantic Superiority over 
European Ingenuity — American Reaping Machines. — The close of 
the Crystal Palace has given rise to many panegyrics, and we would 
not for one moment detract from its merits; it has been deservedly 
the admiration of the world, and visited by thousands of its inhabit- 
ants. Brought into life by the most eminent men, and supported by 
royalty; the means taken were such as no private individual could 
have accomplished; every exertion was used to obtain the choicest 
relics that the earth could produce; almost every country vied in ex- 
hibiting the arts and treasures of its products and manufactures, and 
were with one exception, considered eminently successful. The United 
States of America, however, was thought to be deficient, and in one 
or two cases some rather strong and even coarse remarks were indulged 
in. But what are the results? France can boast of the richness of 
its silks and artificial manufactures, and England of its machinery; but 
we find that our own newspapers are filled with admiration at the in- 
ventions of Brother Jonathan. We shall only slightly touch upon the 
sensation produced by the splendid performance of the American 
yacht, and the dexterity displayed in the lock-picking, which was previ- 
ously deemed impracticable. But it may be said that these are trifling 
matters in a national point of view; still, facts have been elicited by 
these apparent trifling incidents, for we find that the superior build of 
the little American yacht involves a principle — it being now admitted 
that in nautical matters the Americans are equal, if notsuperior, to other 
nations in their construction of their merchant vessels, and also in the 
equipment of their ships of war. On the land they are equally success- 
ful; their reaping machines have astonished our agriculturists. We ex- 
tract from the Gateshead Observer, and other local papers, the sur- 
prising performances of Hussey's and M'Cormick's machines. Our 
readers are aware that there are two rival parties competing their 
powers on British ground, and without entering into the question as 
to which of the two performed their work in the best manner, we copy 



60 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

the result of the trial. The Durham Advertiser states that the per- 
formance took place at Middlesbro, and says: 

" Few subjects have created a greater sensation in the agricultural 
world than the recent introduction into the country of the reaping 
machines of Mr. M'Cormick, and the subsequent appearance of a rival, 
of no inferior description, in a similar implement from Mr. Hussey. 
The interesting trial of the two in competition, intended to have taken 
place on Thursday last, was postponed, in consequence of the torrents 
of rain, until Saturday, when, under the superintendence of a very effi- 
cient jury empanelled to decide the respective merits of the two imple- 
ments, the contest came off. The compact form of Hussey's imple- 
ment was in its favor, though from the notoriety of M'Cormick's at 
Mr. Mechi's farm, the general preference was at first on his side. 
M'Cormick's machine was first tried against the inclination of the corn, 
and completed its portion in very good style, leaving the sheaves in 
a handy manner at the side of the furrow. Hussey's completed a 
similar breadth, but deposited the sheaves behind, and consequently 
several binders were required to follow the machine to clearthe course 
for cutting the next breadth, an imperfection, which, however, it was 
understood could be easily remedied, and the back deliver replaced 
by a side one. This breadth was closer cut than the one executed by 
M'Cormick's reaper. The two were then tried across the ridge, where 
Hussey's implement carried the palm, M'Cormick's leaving a very 
considerable portion of the straw standing behind it; and the last trial 
upon the wheat, in the direction of the lean of the wheat, Hussey's 
machine did its work very fairly, while M'Cormick's was obliged to 
be stopped in its course, after having taken the heads of the wheat, 
but left the whole of the straw standing. At this time two opinions 
did not exist among the company present — Hussey's being the favor- 
ite. The trial was then carried to some barley, where Hussey's again 
succeeded in obtaining public favor. The more compact form of 
Hussey's implement, as well as the superiority of the clipping action 
over the cutting action of M'Cormick's, entitle it to a greater share of 
public favor, and as the advantages of a side delivery can be easily 
applied to it, it will doubtless, becomethe more general in use amongst 
the farmers. We cannot, however, but think that some mechanical 
process might be substituted for raking the sheaf from the receiving 
board, and this with a few other mechanical improvements, would, we 
think, make Hussey's reaping machine a perfect, useful, and econom- 
ical agricultural implement. The latter may be also advantageously 
applied to the cutting of clover crops, which is quite out of the ques- 
tion with the farmer. Another Correspondent on this subject says: — 
" The jury did not on Saturday announce their decision, nor have they 
yet made a report. Nineteen farmers out of twenty who witnessed 
the trial were in favor of Hussey's machine." 

The Gateshead Observer, remarks: — " The great Cleveland contest 
between the two American, reaping machines, respectively invented 
by Mr. M'Cormick, of Chicago, and Mr. Hussey, of Baltimore, origi- 
nally appointed for Thursday, the 25th ult., frustrated, for a time by 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. HI 

the deluge and hurricane of that disastrous day, came off on Satur- 
day, the 27th. The trial was one of great severity, the crops ot 
Wheat and Barley were laid, and the straw damp and soft. The 
laurels so recently placed upon the brow of Mr. M'Cormick have been 
plucked off — not wholly, but in great part — by his fellow countryman, 
Mr. Hussey. Both the machines proved their ability to do good work, 
but Mr. Hussey's attested its superiority; and the English farmer has 
now seen, thanks to Prince Albert and the Exhibition of Works of 
Industry, that his corn and grasses, hitherto slowly and laboriously 
reaped with the sickle and the scythe, may now be plained off the 
land, in five feet breadth, as rapidly as a horse can trot." 

" A trial has taken place before the Cleveland Agricultural Society 
of the respective merits of M'Cormick's and Hussey's American Reap- 
ing Machines, and the report of the jury of practical men, appointed 
by the consent of both parties to decide the question of merit is favor- 
able to the latter Implement. This Decision throws considerable 

DOUBT UPON THE JUSTICE OF THE AWARD OF A GREAT MEDAL AT THE 

EXHIBITION TO M'Cormick's." — Loudon Times, Oct. 7. 



Following upon its success at Cleveland, the proprietors were in- 
vited to exhibit the Machine at the Barnard Castle Agricultural 
Society, Lord Harry Vane, president. 

Barnard Castle, Oct. 8, 185 1. 

The undersigned President, Vice Presidents, and members of the 
Barnard Castle Agricultural Society and others who have witnessed the 
working of the American Reaping Machine, invented by Mr. Hussey, 

do CERTIFY their UNQUALIFIED APPROVAL OF ITS OPERATIONS AND 
ENTIRE SUCCESS. 

LORD HARRY VANE, President. 
W. F. WHARTON, Vice President. 

John Mitchell, V. P., Forcett Hall, Yorkshire, Esq. 

J. S. Edgar, M. D., Barnard Castle, Esq. 

John Dickonson Holmes, Barnard Castle, Solicitor. 

George P. Harrison, Forcett, Yorkshire, Esq., P'armer. 

Edward Scaith, Keverston, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer, and 
Assistant Draining Commissioner. 

Thomas Robinson, Hutton Hall, near Richmond, Yorkshire, Esq., 
Farmer. 

Richard Kay, Forcett Valley, near Darlington, Esq., Farmer. 

William Harrison, Greta Bridge, Yorkshire, Esq., Farmer. 

Thomas Carter, Scales, near Richmond, Esq., Farmer. 

Jno. Whitfield, London, Esq. 

Rev. Thomas Boys Croome, Scotland. 

William Watson, Junr., Barnard Castle, Solicitor. 

J. R. Monkhouse, Barnard Castle, Manufacturer. 

Samuel Nelson, of Scaife House, near Staindrop, Durham, Esq., 
Farmer. 

William Thompson, Lanehead, near Ovington, Yorkshire, Esq., 
Farmer. 



62 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

John Ethwaite, Bainesse, near Catterick, Yorkshire, Farmer. 

Rev. George Dugard, Barnard Castle, Incumbent of Yorkshire, 
Farmer. 

WILLIAM WATSON, Secretary of the Barnard Agricultural 
Association. 



From the Darlifigton a?id Stockton, England, Times, Oct. 1 1. 

Barnard Castle Agricultural Society. 

Air. Hiisscys Rcapuig Machine. 

Great interest was excited in Barnardcastle and its neighborhood 
on Tuesday last, by the announcement that Mr. Hussey's reaping ma- 
chine would be exhibited at the forthcoming meeting of the Barnard- 
castle Agricultural Society; and that a trial of its powers would be 
made previous to the meeting. Accordingly, on Tuesday last, the 
machine was brought into operation in a field of barley, belonging to 
Mr. George White, of Stainton, near Barnardcastle, which it cut 
admirably well. The Rev. W. F. Wharton, and other gentlemen in 
the vicinity, besides a vast number of farmers, were present. The 
Judges on the occasion were H. S. Thompson, Esq. of Moat Hall, 
(one of the Agricultural Jury of the Great Exhibition), W. Lister, 
Esq., of Dunsa Bank; and T. Robinson, Esq., of Hutton. Luncheon 
was provided for a large party in an out-building near the scene of 
the experiments, and it is a fact worthy of notice, that after dinner, 
Mr. Thompson proposed the health of Mr. Hussey (who was present) 
with great fervour, and spoke of the disadvantages under which Mr, 
Hussey's Machine had labored when tried against M'Cormick's for the 
Great Exhibition Medal; Mr. Hussey not being in the country at that 
time, and no one being present who understood the adjusting or work- 
ing of the implement. Mr. Thompson said he was now so thoroughly 
satisfied of its great merits, that he would do his best to get a medal 
awarded to it. After luncheon, the machine was taken to the grounds 
of Mr. Adamson, and tried upon a field of oats, which were so laid as 
to form a very severe test to the machine, but it nevertheless was suc- 
cessful there also. The party retired greatly pleased with it, and some 
of the most wary agriculturists ordered machines upon the ground. — On 
Wednesday morning, a large assemblage of agriculturists met on the 
farm of Mr. F. Atkinson, Westwood, Startforth, to see the machine cut 
a field of wheat, and there again the experiment yielded all that 
even its inventor could desire. We understand that a large number 
of orders were given for machines by the farmers present, which is 
perhaps the very best test of their views in the matter. The general 
impression seemed to be that it would prove of incalculable value to 
the agricultural interest. 

At about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a large party sat down to a 
sumptuous dinner at the King's Head Inn. Lord Harry Vane, pre- 
sided, and the Rev. W. F. Wharton occupied the vice-chair. After 
dinner the usual loyal toasts having been proposed, the vice chair pro- 
posed the health of Mr. Hussey; that gentleman, he said, had con- 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 63 

tributed to their gratification and interest in bringing his invention 
there for trial; the result of that trial had exceeded everything they 
could have previously imagined or hoped; and therefore he begged 
they would excuse him for proposing this health so early, as Mr. Hus- 
sey and his agent's representative Mr Pierce, had to leave by the first 
train from Darlington, which they had then but sufficient time to 
reach. He proposed the healths of Mr. Hussey and of the enterpris- 
ing firm, Messrs. Dray & Co., who had undertaken to bring that ma- 
chine into the British market. The toast was drank with honors. Mr. 
Hussey briefly returned thanks. 

After some further proceedings, the Vice-Chairman proposed the 
health of the President. Lord Harry Vane responded. 

The healths of the Vice-Presidents were proposed. Mr. Mitchell 
briefly responded. Mr. Wharton in acknowledging the toast, took the 
opportunity of again bringing before the meeting the merits of the inven- 
tion which had been the object of that day's attraction. It had been 
most unfortunate that when the trial took place for the prize of the 
great exhibition. Mr. Hussey had not arrived in this country — nobody 
knew how it was managed, whilst M'Cormick's was properly attended 
to. Mr. Hussey''^ machine did no work, and Mr. M'Cormick took the 
medal. No sooner did Mr. Hussey arrive than he prayed for a further 
trial, but the Jury could not grant it. All difficulty was removed by 
Mr. M'Cormick throwing down the gauntlet. The trial came off in 
Cleveland — the result was clear and satisfactory in favor of Mr. Hus- 
sey's machine as decidedly superior. Mr. Thompson, of Moat Hall, 
one of the Great Exhibition Jury, was also one of the Judges in Cleve- 
land, and was so satisfied on the subject that he left, determined to 
urge for a medal for Mr. Hussey. It must be a source of pleasure to 
all, to find that justice was thus about to be done to a worthy, modest 
and unassuming man. 



From the Darlington and Stockton Times, October nth, 185 1. 
The Re.aping Machines at Barnardcastle. 
To the Editor of the Darlington and Stockton Times. 

Sir: — I beg to trouble you with a few particulars of Mr. Hussey's 
American Reaping Machine, which I yesterday saw working in a field 
near Barnardcastle. I am not a farmer, and oi" course cannot be thor- 
oughly an fait 2it describing an agricultural implement, nor am I suf- 
ficiently versed in mechanics to explain to you the construction of the 
machine in all its details, but of the result I can speak, and that with 
confidence. 

Drawn by two horses, a man seated on the near side horse as driv- 
er, this wonderful implement was drawn with perfect ease, at more 
than the rate of three miles an hour, round and round a field, partly in 
wheat and partly in barley, cutting a breadth of corn in its progress 
with a regularity and evenness that was surprising. No straggling 
stalks of corn were left — none of the slovenly irregular work too often 
seen where manual labor is employed, was to be discovered; on the 



64 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

contrary, the field after shearing, looked nearly as smooth and even 
as a kitchen floor or turnpike road. The farmer has now no longer oc- 
casion to be behind the reapers, dinning in their years, "shear low,' — 
" now do shear low; ' for this machine, with a very simple adjustment, 
will cut the corn as low as he can possibly require. A seat on the 
machine is provided for a man, who with a large rake, and with mo- 
tion resembling the pushing of a punt, removes the corn from the 
machine as it is cut, and leaves it for the binders to put together ig, 
sheafs. 

The assistance of two men and two horses are thus all that is re- 
quired to draw and to guide this wonderful sickle — and so manned, it 
will cut with the ease and regularity I have described, from perhaps 
10 to 12 acres in the working day. Nor as far as I could see, or learn 
from the observation of others, does there appear to be any drawback 
against its general adoption. Its price (£21) is not exorbitant — its 
construction is not so complex as to cause a fear of frequent repairs 
being required; men of the common run of agricultural laborers are 
quite competent to go with it, and the work of drawing it is not dis- 
tressing to the horses. Neither does the nature of the ground appear 
to be much an object, for it travelled as well over ridge and furrow 
as it did upon a level. 

Nothing could be more unanimous, than the approval of which the 
machine met with from all who saw its work, and I was informed that 
nine machines were ordered on the ground. Among the purchasers 
was the Duke of Cleveland, who with Lord Harry Vane, was present, 
and examined its working and construction minutely. The curiosity 
excited by the machine was great, and an immense number of people 
visited the ground during the two days. — Noblemen and gentlemen, 
J farmers and farm laborers, tradesmen and mechanics, men and wo- 

I men, flocked to seen the implement, which from the other side of the 

Atlantic has come to effect so important a revolution in the labor of 
the harvest field, and all were agreed that Brother Jonathan, though 
still a young man, had some clever notions in his head, and that John 
Bull, in the case of the reaping machine, would not be above taking 
advantage of his intelligence. I am, &c. 

A. B. 



[^From the London Daily News.'\ 
Hussey's Reaping Machine — Trial before Prince Albert. 

The celebrated battle of the Ganges hardly excited more interest 
in the railway world than the battle of the Reaping machines has 
lately created in the agricultural world, nor is the result perhaps 
very much less important in the latter case than in the former. 

Of the recent inventions for diminishing the cost of production, 
the most remarkable are undoubtedly the Reaping machines of Messrs. 
Hussey and M'Cormick. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call 
them importations than inventions, since both have been in use for 
a considerable time in America; and amongst the benefits arising 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 55. 

from the Exhibition, it is certainly not the least that it has introduced 
to the agriculturist of Great Britain implements of the highest practical 
utility, which might otherwise have remained forever exclusively in the 
hands of their brethren across the Atlantic. It will be remembered 
that a trial of the two rival machines took place last summer, at Mr. 
Mechi's model farm in Essex, having been directed by the royal 
commissioners, with the view of determining the comparative merits 
of the two instruments, whose patentees were competitors for the 
forthcoming medal prizes. At that time Mr. Hussey, the American 
inventor of the machine called after his name, had not arrived in the 
country. The weather too, was very unpropitious for the trial, notwith- 
standing which a very large, number of gentlemen were present. 
The machines were tried upon a field of wheat, and the result was 
such as to convince all present, of the superiority, in every point 
of view, of M'Cormick's machine ^ — a conviction which was subse- 
quently confirmed, by the fact of the Exhibition medal being awarded 
exclusively to the patentee of that machine. The tables however 
were soon to be turned. Mr. Hussey arrived in England; a challenge 
having been given by the agents of Mr. M'Cormick, it was accepted 
by Mr, Hussey, and his English agent, Mr. Dray; and, after a fair 
contest before the Cleveland Society, at Middelsbro', near Stockton- 
on-Tees, on the 25th and 27th of Sept., a jury of twelve agriculturists 
pronounced a verdict in favor of the unmedalled machine. They 
decided that of the two machines, Hussey's had the preponderance 
of advantages — that it cut corn in the best manner, caused the least 
waste, did the most work in a given time, left the cut corn in the 
best order for gathering and binding, was the best adapted for ridge 
and furrow, was the least liable to get out of repair, and was the least 
price at first cost. On the two other points submitted to them, 
namely, which machine required the least amount of horse labor, 
and which the least amount of manual labor, the jury declined to express 
a decided opinion, in consequence of the state of the weather." 

There have been many other trials of Hussey's machine in different 
parts of the country, and the result has been so far uniformly satis- 
factory. — Amongst these we have now to mention a very interesting 
one which took place by appointment last Saturday, at Windsor, 
in the presence of his Royal Highness, Prince Albert, originating 
in a correspondence between General Wemyss, on behalf of the Prince, 
and Messrs. Dray & Co. of Swan-lane, tne agents for Mr. Hussey. 
The spot selected for the trial was behind the statue of George HI., 
at the end of the Long Walk, fern — of which there is an abundance 
in that locality — being the article on which the machine had to operate. 
The Prince having from an early hour in the morning been engaged 
in shooting in the vicinity of the statue, at half-past twelve resigned 
his gun, and proceeded on horseback, in company with General Wemyss 
and Col. Seymour, to the spot appointed for the trial of the machine. 
Dismounting from his horse, his royal highness saluted briefly, and 
gracefully the assembled company, and especially Mr. Hussey and 
Mr. Dray. He then asked a few general questions respecting the 



66 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS 

history of the machine, and observed, that as the ground selected 
was very uneven (it was in fact remarkably so), the trial would 
be a good one. After a brief delay, the gear being declared in order, 
on went the machine, drawn by two strong horses, and heedless of ruts 
and hillocks in its course, which was very rapid, bringing down every 
thing it encountered cleanly and completely, including two or three 
slices of turf at least a foot long, and more than an inch thick. 

The performances of the machine were not confined to one single 
course. A considerable amount of work was performed in the most 
satisfactory manner, Mr. Hussey himself sitting on the box at the side, 
and throwing aside what was cut down in the manner best adapted 
for gathering and binding. Indeed the work was not confined to the 
fern; a rabbit who was not accustomed to this species of interference 
was started and cruelly lacerated before he had time to escape. 

At the close of the trial, his royal highness gave a practical 
proof of his favorable opinion by ordering two of the machines for 
himself, one for Windsor and the other for Osborne. He then, after 
expressing his gratification, rode back to the game-keepers and resumed 
his gun. After he had left, the machine operated well upon some 
rushes. 

It may not be out of place to state here that Mr. Dray's explanation 
of the failure of the Hussey machine at Tiptree Hall (Mr. Mechi's 
farm), is that it was entirely owing to its not being properly managed. 
On that occasion, he says, the person in charge of it was simply a porter 
at the Exhibition, who, not understanding the matter, neglected to clear 
away the wheat as it was cut down, in consequence of which the action 
of the machine was unavoidably and fatally impeded. We witnessed 
the result at Mr Mechi's, and certainly there was no such fault on 
Saturday. The progress of the machine was notwithstanding the 
unevenness of the ground, rapid and satisfactory; and it was stated 
as a fact that on a level ground the horses used in drawing may trot, 
not only without weakening or impeding the action of the knives, 
but even with advantages, as by that means the cutting requires 
increased precision and force. 

The following is Prince Albert's certificate: 

W'iNDSOR Castle, Nov. 13, 185 1. 

Sir: — In answer to your letter addressed to Gen. Wemyss, I have 
received the commands of his Royal Highness Prince Albert, to say, 
that so far as he could judge of Mr. Hussey's Reaping Machine, 
from its performance in the high fern at Windsor Park, his Royal 
Highness is disposed to form a very favorable opinion of it, and has 
ordered one* in consequence for the use of his own farm. His Royal 
Highness can however give no opinion as to the relative merits of this 
machine in comparison with those of others which he has not seen 
at work. I have the honor to be sir, your ob"t serv't, 

GREY. 

*The Prince ordered two Machines, one for Windsor and one for Isle of Wight. 



ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 67 



From Maidstone & South Eastern Gazette, Oct. 21, '51. 

WEST KENT AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY'S PLOUGHING 

MATCH. 

HUSSEY's AMERICAN REAPER. 

A distinguishing feature at this society's meeting on Thursday, 
the i6th inst., was an exhibition of the capabilities of the above 
machine. The sesson of the year of course prevented a display 
of its powers on anything in the shape of grain, indeed great difficulty 
was found in procuring even a green crop on which to operate. 
Undaunted by this fact, the inventor was determined to show to the 
anxious hundreds assembled the extent of the advantages to be derived 
from the use of his reaper. At two o'clock the machine was set 
to work upon a field of clover, short and light (as may be supposed), 
where its performance was effectual as it possibly could be, exciting 
a considerable amount of surprise as well as gratification. It was 
then taken to a piece of marsh land, where clumps of stout rushes 
in many places were growing in thick masses, presenting the appear- 
ance of stunted grain. The machine passed over this marsh, cutting 
the rushes with the same facility as if it had been corn, leaving the 
stubble about 4 inches long and very regular, giving also a good 
representation of the manner in which the sheaves of wheat, &c. are 
usually delivered. Both these operations, but especially the latter, 
were considered severe contests of the capabilities of the machine. 
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the performance was 
far beyond all reasonable expectations. It was a question whether 
the excellent work of the 58 competing ploughs, or the extraordinary 
novelty of Hussey's machine in operation, added most to the gratification 
of the large assemblage of the leading agriculturists of Kent. 

From the Kentish Gazette, Nov. 11, 185 1. 

In addition to the interest naturally felt by all who live on and 
by the soil in its proper cultivation, there was an unusual degree 
of attraction in the fact that a reaping machine by Mr. Hussey, 
(the celebrated American Machinist) would be tested upon 7 acres 
of mustard adjoining the ploughing field. The reaping was com- 
menced about twelve o'clock, and continued for a considerable period. 
The crop of mustard was wet, and by no means calculated to favor 
the experiment. It was however, after the machine was properly 
arranged, cut down with great regularity; and at a speed equal to four 
miles an hour it traversed the circuit of the field, hewing its way 
through the mustard, quickly followed by a crowd of eager observers, 
whose wondering gaze exhibited at once their astonishment and 
admiration of its working. Occasionally the level of the cutters 
were altered, so as to leave a greater or less length of stubble, which 
evinced the accurate adjustment to which the machine could be 



68 ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. 

brought. Some portion of it was taken to pieces, and the whole 
of the arrangements shown, which the farmers present displayed 
an eager anxiety to investigate, and many were the questions pro- 
posed, and satisfactory answered by the talented inventor. 

We should mention that the undulation of the land does not impede 
its operations in the least — as it was well observed by a gentleman 
present, that where a cart could travel there this machine could also 
go, and complete its design. . No previous acquaintance with its prin- 
ciple is necessary to be able to guide its operation, as was shown by 
Mr. Neame, Jr. who mounted the platform and discharged the functions 
appertaining to the party who removes the corn from the machine after 
it is cut, with the greatest ease and precision. Indeed the most 
unqualified approval was given by the gentlemen present, to the 
applicability of the reaping machine to the purposes for which 
it is designed. We have thus entered into minute particulars, because 
this is the first opportunity we have had of witnessing the results 
of such an experiment, attended as it was with every degree of satis- 
faction. Lord Sondes gave an order for one of the machines, and 
we understand that three or four orders were given in the course 
of the day. 

At the dinner which followed, the chairman gave " Sir John Tylden 
and the visitors." 

Sir John Tylden, as a member as well as a visitor, replied to the 
toast, and in a jocular strain animadverted on the suffering of the 
farmers of Faversham, who were determined, like a celebrated regi- 
ment in the service, to " die hard." He alluded to the reaping machine 
of Mr. Hussey, which he characterized in contradistinction to that 
of Mr. M'Cormick's and all others, as the universal reaping machine, 
of which he spoke in highly approving terms, and passed a warm 
eulogium on its talented inventor, and the country he represented, 
which in the space of 80 years had risen from a wilderness to her now 
exalted position, and proud of her Anglo-Saxon blood. 



A REVIEW 



OF THE 



Pamphlet of W. N. P. Fitzgerald, 

"Counsel for Parties in the State of New York," 

IN OPPOSITION TO THE EXTENSION OF THE PATENT 



OF 



OBKD MTJSSKY: 

AND ALSO OF THE DEFENCE, OR EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF 

SAID EXTENSION. 

WITH A 

NARRATIVE OR BRIEF HISTORY 

OF 

REAPING MACHINES, 

AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS FOR PRIORITY OF 

INVENTION: 

AND AN APPENDIX. 



BALTIMORE: 

FROM THE PRESS OF MILLS & COX, 

122 BALTIMORE STREET, 
18S6. 

Reprinted by the W. B. CON KEY COMPANY. 
1897. 



REVIEW. 



In reviewing these pamphlets — the one intended to defeat, and 
the other in vindication of the rights of Obed Hussey — and which are 
in fact the rights of every honest inventor in the coyntry, — as well 
from the aspersions cast on his private character, and abounding in 
this paper, as from the labored efforts by interested parties to deprive 
an honest and hard working man of the just reward due to his genius 
and talents, it is proper to say that we have no private or pecuniary 
interest in any patent claim. Nor are we fee'd "counsel" or hired 
agents — literally Lobby Lazvyefs, to get claims through Congress, right 
or wrong. But we are farmers, who can appreciate, and know practi- 
cally the great value of this invention to the Agricultural interests of 
the country; and who desire to see the inventive talent of our country- 
men fostered and encouraged by the General Government, and ade- 
quately rewarded for its toil and privations. 

As Farmers, we advocate the extension of this patent, and as 
Farmers we have a right to be heard, being the class most directl}' 
interested, next to the inventor himself; and fully believing that the 
country — nay, the whole Agricultural world — is more indebted to Obed 
Hussey than to any or all other inventors, in being the first to render 
this implement of real practical value to the Farmer, and that the evi- 
dence fully sustains this belief — that his invention has conferred the 
most signal and lasting benefits on others, with a reward in no degree 
adequate, to himself; that it is justly due to one who has proved him- 
self a public benefactor both at home and aboad; and that in granting 
the extension, it is strictly in accordance with an enlightened policy 
of the Government, and will not injure the interests of the farmer, 
or others, who have the slightest right to object or complain. 

It is brought as a grave accusation against Obed Hussey, that he 
was " ignorant," not " learned in the law," and as " familiar with the 
rules and regulations of the Patent Office," as this " counsel " professes 
to be. 

Is it to be supposed that he could be? The man whose whole life 
has been one of toil and hardship; though seeking to be useful to 
others, and to make an honest living by industry and perseverance; as 
well — and for years — on the pathless Ocean, in pursuit of the great 
" Leviathan of the deep," to furnish the oil for the lawyers' midnight 
lamp — " passing nine consecutive months of the year on the southern 
ocean, and under the shadow of the main topsail, without even a sight 
of terra firma" — as on the land, to aid in lightening the labors of his 
fellow man, "who provides the staff of life. 

71 



A REVIEW. 



The fore-castle, not the Forum — the work-shop, and not the Uni- 
versity, have been, we presume, the schools in which he was taught; 
and doubtless his hands are more familiar with the harpoo7i, the ham- 
mer and the chisel, than with the pen. For more than twenty y-ears — 
indeed the prime of his life — he has devoted all the energies of his 
mind to perfect and bring into use, this great labor-saving implement, 
the Reaping and Mowing Machine. And if he has by so doing bene- 
fitted others, it is certainly no more than right and fair that he should 
receive a reward in return; — such as the laws of the land recognize as 
" adequate reward." 

We honestly believe that he is justly entitled to what he asks for; 
and are willingt" without money and without price," to aid the deserv- 
ing as far as our efforts and influence can avail in so laudable a cause. 

In asking Congress for an extension of his Patent it is no more 
than hundreds have asked before him; and have had granted to them, 
for inventions of small comparative value in many cases, to the public. 
If his is of great value to th.Q public, it certainly ought to be considered 
of corresponding value to the invetitor. 

We will endeavor to show that his invention has proved itself of 
very great value to the Agricultural interests of the country. 

As to the benefit of Reaping Machines to the farmer, and the just 
or adequate rezvard to the inventor, we will give the opinion of one who 
was not only disinterested, but fully understood both branches of the 
subject;* he says: "In Agriculture, it is in my view, as important, as a 
labor-saving device, as the spinning jenny and power loom in manu- 
factures. It is one of those great and valuable inventions which com- 
mence a new era in the progress of improvement, and whose beneficial 
influence is felt in all coming time; and I do not hesitate to say that 
the man whose genius produces a machine of so much value, should 
make a large fortune out of it. It is not possible for him to obtain 
during the whole existence of the term of his patent, a tenth part of 
the value of the labor saved to the community by it in a single 
year." 

There are doubtless applications for extensions, and perhaps 
granted too, in which the applicant has been amply rewarded; others 
again, and it is believed by far the greater number, have been made 
poorer instead of richer, by devoting their time and energies to intro- 
duce useful implements and machinery. 

The shrewd and designing, not the poor inventor, usually reap the 
reward due to genius. Such are ever ready for the sake of gain, and 
with a reasonable prospect of impunity, to invest their capital; often 
realizing rr/z/'./'i'rrr/'//. profits out of the public — taking the bread out 
of the mouth of the poor, but honest inventor, and frequently with 
means too limited to protect his known and admitted rights; or if these 
rights are acknowledged, the Capitalist usually retains the " lion's 
share," and the poor inventor must be content nith a mere pittance, or 
get nothing. • 

We do not propose to follow the example of this "counsel " by ar- 



*Hon. Edward Burke. 



A REVIEW. 73 

guments on abstract principles and supposed cases, that have no sort 
of analogy or bearing whatever on the subject; for he bases his argu- 
ments on false premises — assuming as facts what never existed, except 
in his own imagination. Nor is it necessary to review in detail the law 
arguments of the learned " counsel "; though we expect to prove by the 
lazu that he either does not himself understand it, or intentionally mis- 
interprets its plain and obvious meaning. It is believed there are yet 
some good lawyers on the floor of Congress, who are quite as 
likely to interpret them aright as this gentleman; and who, when they 
desire Law, know where to find it, and how properly to expound its 
provisions. 

Congress may require facts to enable it to act understandingly; 
these have already been furnished, and are now on file in this case, 
fully sufficient to convince and satisfy two able Committees of the 
Senate — with a fair proportion of very talented Jurists on each — to in- 
duce tinanimoiis reports in favor of the extension; and this too after 
a careful and critical investigation of the facts and merits of the claim. 
On the passage of the Bill through the Senate, it was stated by a mem- 
ber of the Committee, who is also a very talented lawyer, and had 
carefully investigated the case, that "the report of the Committee on 
Patents and the Patent Office is unanimously in favor of the bill. It 
is a very strong case, and one about which ihe Committee has no 
doubt at all." 

There is such a thing as retributive justice, where the attempt to 
injure another in character or interests, recoils on its authors; and this 
is believed to be one strictly of that character; for it enables us to ex- 
pose the object of a combination, just as selfish and unjust, as it is 
unwarranted by the facts. In seeking to maintain his own just rights, 
Hussey has not assailed the character of any one; nor has he, in the 
slightest degree, so far as we can perceive, attempted to invade the 
rights of others. He has long resided, and is well known in the city 
of Baltimore; and not altogether unknown in some other sections of 
this State; possibly this "counsel" and "parties in the State of New 
York" may have heard of him in other portions of the Union, if not in 
foreign countries. However this may be, we leave it for others, disi?i- 
tcrestcd parties, to say, whether they have ever known him engaged, 
either by chicanery or open assault, to traduce private charatter, or 
intentionally or knowingly, interfere with the rights and property of 
others. 

With these general remarks, we will examine the pamphlet in 
question — refute its misstatements and perversions of facts, by documen- 
tary evidence; and clearly show, as we think, that its sole motiv^e and 
object is to deprive Obed Hussey of laurels fairly won — to rob him of 
the reward justly earned, by more than twenty years of toil and per- 
severance, to perfect this great and valuable labor-saving machine, 
and transfer the profits to the pockets of a few designing and inter- 
ested " parties in the State of New York." Who they are, or how 
many, their " counsel" carefully conceals; nor are we surprised that in 
such a cause, they desire concealment, and should prefer hiring one 



74 A REVIEW. 

who appears quite ready and willing to invade the rights of others, and 
to assail private character, without cause and without provocation, by 
which to gain a fee. We only notice this attack on private character 
at all, on the general principle that the oft repeated slander may as- 
sume the garb of truth with some, if unnoticed and unexposed. 

In quoting from the pamphlet, it is done, italics and all, just as 
printed. On page ist it is stated: 

" If the patent in question had not expired, and were before the Commissioner 
of Patents on application for extension, the questions would be simply whether Mr. 
Hussey had made a valuable invention, and whether he had failed from causes 
beyond his control to obtain a reasonable remuneration therefor. If so, he would, 
prima facie, be entitled to an extension, and it would be granted to him if consistent 
with the public interests. [See 18 Sec. Stat, of 1836, and 1 Sec. Stat, of 1848.]— But 
the patent having expired, and the public having thereby acquired the absolute right 
to the invention, and having entered upon and extensively exercised that right 
throughout the country for nearly seven years, and numerous individuals having in 
good faith invested millions of dollars in the manufacture of improved machines 
embodying some of the general features covered by this patent — other questions of 
vast import to the public arise, and should be carefully considered." 

Now the merits of the whole question of extension elaborately 
argued in some I2 pages, might be comprised within the compass of a 
nutshell; the authority and grounds for granting it are found in the 
Act of July 4th, 1836, viz: has the applicant a valid claim as inventor, 
— is the invention of value to the community, — and has he been ade- 
quately rewarded thereby. But in order to avoid all cause for a 
charge of unfairness, and at the risk of too much extending our review, 
we will quote at greater length than is deemed necessary. It will also 
show more clearly the spirit and motives of these "parties in the State 
of New York" and their " counsel." 

In page 3 it is stated, that " he had allowed his patent to expire, — had given no 
public notice of an intention to extend it, and who has left the public in the posses- 
sion and ownership of the invention, without suggesting or hinting that he intended 
to make such an attempt for nearly six years! and until millions of dollars are in- 
vested in the manufacture and sale of machines, improved by the valuable inven- 
tions of others, but which embrace some of the elements covered by the patent 
songht to be extended; [I!] the whole manufacture and sale of which would be made 
subject to such tariff as the patentee under the extension might choose to impose, or 
be arrested entirely by an injunction, or subjected to ruinous suits and damages at Law. 
And be it remembered, these vast establishments sprang up, and these vast sums of 
money were invested, when the invention of Hussey had long been fully and com- 
pletely vested in the public, and all was done \xv good faith, without the slightest hint 
or suspicion that even an attc7npt to renew \/as contemplated, or a belief in the 
possibility of a renewal, or any reason to believe it any more than all steam navi- 
gation should be laid under contribution, at the will of the heirs, by the renewal of 
the patent of Robert Fulton!" 

The learned "counsel " may well make a note of exclamation here; 
a dozen would not be misplaced. We would like to ask him a single 
question,— does he expect the public to believe all this? and does he 
believe it himself? But hear him further, page four. 

"It should be constantly borne in mind, that in 1847, prior to the expiration of 
Hussev's patent, he might have applied under the then existing law, to the Board of 
Extensions, and obtained an extension, if he had chosen to do so, and could have 
shown himself to be entitled thereto. But he made no such application, as the 
records of the Patent Office show." 



A REVIEW. 75 

Again, same page: 

" Now Mr. Hussey could not have been ignorant of this, [i. e. the "sixty days 
rule," or notice] and he does not pretend to be ignorant that notice to adverse 
parties was required by statute, to give them opportunity to oppose, iS:c. These 
things I say Hussey knew, and does not dare to pretend ignorance of. 

"Under this state of the law how does Hussey proceed? Why, he makes no 
application at the proper time and place, but calls on the commissioner personally iox 
the first time, ten days before the expiration of his patent, and talks \i\\\\. him about 
an extension, and is of course told that he has by his own delay rendered it impos- 
sible to give reasonable notice to adverse parties, and that his application will be 
rejected if made, and that he had better save the fee. He is also informed that the 
^^^r/d'^/ //w^ for notice which the Board of Extensions consider reasonable, is sixty 
days, and that they have long since adopted a rule to that affect. This rule, let it be 
recollected, had been previously for years, and still was, circulated freely in the same 
pamphlet with the instructions to those who have business with the Patent Office, 
among all who desired the pamphlet, and sent to almost every patentee in the 
country, and none having occasion to know could be ignorant without the gros- 
sest negligence of the rule adopted by the board. A note to the Commissioner 
would have brought him, without a penny of expense, and within twenty-four hours 
fro7n mailiiig his note a perfect printed copy of all the rules on the subject. A plea of 
ignorance is always suspicious, and under such circumstances becomes peculiarly so. 
'W^z.?,'\\. real ignorance,ox 2l ruse \.o escape thorough investigation without subjecting 
himself to the presumptions which always arise from dodging investigation? Igno- 
rance is sometimes very convenient, so convenient that the law never allows a party to 
avail himself of its benefits, when he might have known. By this igfiorance or trick 
he has effectually escaped investigation. Shall he also escape adverse presump- 
tions, and thus derive a double benefit from his inexcusable ignorance, whether real 
or feigned? Shall an innocent public suffer the consequences of Hussey's inexcusable 
neglect, while he reaps only its advantages?" 

Now we would ask the intelligent reader, what could have been 
the inducement for these "clients" — "the principal of them who did 
not enter upon the business until years after the expiration of 
Hussey's patent," [of course meaning Howard & Co., the assignees of 
Ketchum's patent] to "invest millions of dollars" in the manufacture 
of machines, that they knew perfectly well were " embodying some of 
the general features covered by this patent," — in another place — 
" which embrace some of the elements covered by the patent sought 
to be extended " — and in a third place, " embrace a single feature of 
his patent?" 

How were these " millions of dollars" acquired, that were not in- 
vested until " the inventions of Hussey had long bedn fully and com- 
pletely vested in the public," — " not until they left the fullest 
opportunity to apply to the Patent Office before the expiration of the 
patent, or to Congress after'' — nor " until years after the expiration of 
Hussey's patent?" &c., &c. They either made these "millions" at 
other kinds of business, — if indeed they were ever made — whilst 
Hussey was struggling in poverty and adversity, and straining every 
nerve to perfect and introduce the machine into use ; and as it would 
appear, J2ist in time for these capitalists to realize other " Diillions "from 
his labors ! ox , if made since, by the sale of machines, they are rich 
enough already, 7nanufactured out of the brains of other jne?i, and have no 
right whatever to interfere. And you to talk about Hussey having 
"become the cat's-paw of a more designing and grasping man!! " 

It is perfectly well known to every machinist in the country who 



76 ■ A REVIEW. 

has ever seen a Reaper, that no great outlay in machinery is required 
to build them on a moderate scale, and that the same machinery is 
equally adapted to the construction of threshing machines, and a 
hundred other kinds of work. It is only in such shops — "these vast 
establishments," as these parties in the State of New York have, who 
boast of selling their thousands upon thousands of Reapers annually, 
that "millions" can be used; and with these, the main expense is for 
materials and workmanship, not dead capital invested in machinery. 
It is however just as easy to zvrite 7nillions, as thousands. We have 
known good and efificient reapers built — after the right was honestly 
obtained, to build the riglit kind, — by persons who were not mechanics 
by profession. A good country blacksmith, aided by a worker in 
wood, and a suitable lathe to turn the journals, are altogether com- 
petent with a little experience to do the work; and such has been the 
start, of almost every original itiventor. True, tl.e Capitalist by a divi- 
sion of labor, and more extensive machinerv can do a largerbusiness, 
and make more ?mmey. 

Much parade is made, and much stress laid, on doing injustice to 
the "public" — "the innocent public," in granting this particular 
extension. Do the farmers, who alone use these machines, constitute 
the "innocent public" which so claims their sympathy? By no 
means; but it consists of — and by their own showing, a few million- 
aires, the assignees of a poor patentee, who seek to deprive others of 
their just rights, in order to increase still more, their own sordid gains. 
The Farmer is not\\\Q party sought to be benefitted in this crusade 
against a " sailor's right:" //;«> interest, and the " public good," are 
but as the paw of poor puss to get at the roasted chestnuts. Do these 
very disinterested and public spirited parties who are so alive to the 
" public good," reduce the price of their machines to the farmer? Do 
they not charge just as high for them now, when they boast of selling 
thousands annually, as when the sales did not reach hundreds? We 
know they do, for we have now before us their hand bills for several 
years past. 

We do not believe there is a disinterested and liberal minded 
farmer or mechanic in the Union, who knowing the facts or true 
merits of the case, would oppose or object to the extension. All such 
with whom we have conferred, both as Societies and individually, are 
in favor of it, as a reward fairly and fully earned by years of toil, in 
the effort to benefit the agricultural interests of the country. This is 
not the place to enter into details of profits, &c.; but as we sometimes 
arrive at correct results by comparisons, it may be stated, that owing 
to his very limited means in part, but more to the great difficulty in 
inducing the farmers to adopt improvements, — proverbial as they 
generally are for caution, and adhering to old and long established 
usages — Hussey sold less tJian tJiree hundred maehines, all told, [but not 
paid for to this day,] during the whole term of the Patent, of fourteen 
years! \X. rQC[\nrc(:\ elei'en years to sell less than half of them: — not an 
average of the ^;/^ hundredth part of what these capitalists, or "the 
principal of then" boast of having sold in a single year ; nor \S\q. four 



A REVIEW. 'it 

himdrcdtJi part of what one of their agents stated they would make and 
sell the current year! ! ! We would say to these " parties," as did the 
Speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses to a very modest man, 
though he afterward attained to so})ie celebrity, by always acting on 
the principle, that "honesty is the best policy,'' "sit down Mr. 
Washington; your great deeds are only equalled by your modesty." 

It is comparatively an east thing, after the forest is levelled, the 
track opened and cleared out, bridges erected, and the rails laid down, 
iox X\\& Locomotive \.o fly as on "the wings of the wind," and almost 
annihilating time and space. 

And just so wuth these capitalists; after long years of privation 
and perseverance in inventing and perfecting this invaluable machine, 
and the still greater difficulties and delays are overcome, in getting it 
introduced into use by the inventor, they, with a large money capital, 
have no difficulty in erecting " vast establishments," and selling 
machines by thousands. Like the merciless Kite, they watch their 
chance, and pounce down upon the innocent prey in the farm yard. 
But "ware the farmer boy" with his rusty old fire-lock; for before 
soaring away with his prize, the depredator may perchance find his 
wings clipped, and his talons rendered powerless, by an unexpected 
but well aimed shot. 

It is asserted over and over again by this " Counsel," not less than 
three or fourtimes, that sixty days' 7iotice was necessary by the " rule " 
of the board of extensions; that Hussey calls on the Co7nmissioner 
personally for the jirst time Ten Days before the expiration of his 
patent, and talks with him about an extension; is informed that the 
"' s/iortest tijne'' for the notice is sixty days; — long since adopted, and 
that it had been previously and for years printed and circulated freely 
by the Patent OfHce, &;c. &c. But before returning this broadside, we 
will get into close quarters, and receive another from pages 5 and 6 — 

" But even if he had been i2;norant of the szxfv days' ntle, adopted by the board, 
he could not have been ignorant that in a country so wide spread as this, a shorter 
term of notice, to allow those interested adversely to hear of the application, and 
prepare their testimony for the hearing, zvoitld not he sufficient, or reasonable, or just 
to the public, but would be mocking the public and individuals by the forms of law 
without its substance, and trampling upon their rights while they were msulted by a 
sha7n notice. It would be recalling the days of that tyrant who published his edicts 
by writing them in small letters, and placing them so high in the air that people 
could not read them, and still recjuiring compliance, or the consequences. Hussey 
could not have intended the public to have notice, and could have delayed the call on 
the Commissioner till withing ten days oi the expiration of his patent, for no other 
purpose, than to deprive the public of the means of notice, and obtain his extension 
covertly on ex-parte affidavits, while the public and those interested, were mocked 
and instilled, by legal forms. I say he could not have intended \o act in good faith. 
And why— but that his pretensions would not bear the light. If he had applied yf/?)' 
days before the expiration, there might have been an appearance of sincerity ; but 
how miserable is the plea that he did not know the precise number of days limited by 
the board, when he did not apply at all, and called on the commissioner for the first 
time on the subject, but ten days before the expiration of the jpatent! The facts 
destroy every prestonption of good faith. He did not intend to allow a fair investiga- 
tion but to stifle it, and get an extension on an ex-parte hearing, where he could 
prove what he pleased, without danger of contradiction. 

'But again: The course pursued left no traces. Nothing appears on the record 



78 A REVIEW. 

of the proper office, to show that the subject was ever broached there, or to give 
notice of his intentions. Those, therefore, who sought information at the proper 
point, could learn only that no attempt had ever been made to obtain an extension, 
which put them off the track. — The conversation between Hussey and the Commis- 
sioner appears to have been entirely secret, and is shown to have taken place only 
by a private letter of Edmund Burke to the chairman of the Senate Committee, 
some four months after the alleged interview. There was nothing to give those who 
were interested adversely the slightest hint that an extension was contemidated, how- 
ever diligently it might be sought.— His track being entirely covered, he proceeds 
with equal secrecy to Congress with his petition, and his wretched excuse about 
ignorance of the sixty days' rule — but without any excuse for his delay till ten days 
before the expiration of his patent — it admitted of none — and prayed an extension by 
their extraordinary interposition! " 

Now onQ fact dX least, appears to be conclusively established, and 
that is, this astute "counsel" considers himself perfectly an fait in 
" law," and the " rules and regulations of the Patent Office." If he 
had understood them only half as well as he appears to do the bandy- 
ing of reproachful epithets, it would be better for hiui, though not for 
his cause. As this '' sixty days' rule " appears to be the strong hold of 
the counsel — his " Rock of Gibraltar," we will examine it with a little 
more attention. 

Knowing, we presume, but little about law, and still less about "the 
rules and regulations of the Patent Office " — for all his time, and con- 
stant labor with his own hands, were required in the workshop to earn 
a bare support, — but being very desirous to obtain an extension of his 
Patent before it should expire, and also having some personal acquaint- 
ance with Commissioner Ellsworth, Hussey's first application was 
made to him in 1845, ^ short time previous to his going out of ofifice; 
certainly not less than tzvclve rnonths before the expiration. This is 
proved by the annexed letter: 

La Fayette, Ia., July 3, 1854. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter of some weeks since, referring to a con- 
versation I had with you while I was Commissioner of Patents, 
relative to the extension of your patent for a Reaper, would have 
been answered earlier, but for absence and extreme pressure of 
business. 

If my recollection will aid you, I most cheerfully state, that before 
your patent expired, you consulted me as to the extension of the 
same. I replied that it was better to postpone an application until 
near the time the patent would run out, for the Office must estimate 
the profits of the invention during the whole term; and you accord- 
ingly postponed it. I regret you postponed it too long. The publi- 
cation of thirty days before the patent expired, was a rule as published 
by m}'self. If you have lost your opportunity for relief through (the) 
Patent Ofiice, you must of course go to Congress. — I have always 
regarded your improvement as valuable, and that the country is 
greatly indebted to your persevering efforts, notwithstanding the 
obstacles presented. 

Yours respectfully, 

HENRY L. ELLSWORTH. 
Mr. Obcd Hussev, Balto. Md. , 



A REVIEW. • 79 

This at least presents " an appcavMice of sincerity ; " and at once cuts 
down tltQ " sixty d/fys' rule" to a " t/iirty days' rule." But the Reaper 
can cut better than to leave /la/f the grain standing. It usually cuts 
every head! Hussey acted on this official advice; and did " postpone 
an application until near the time the patent would run out " — literally 
so, for he was not advised of even the " thirty days' rule." 

When he again applied, and not " until near the time the patent 
would run out," Edmund Burke was Commissioner of Patents. He 
states in a letter to Senators Douglas and Shields, under date March 
4th, 1850, as follows: 

'* In relation to the patent of Hussey, if my memory serves me, his 
patent expired some time within the latter part of December, 1847. 
During that month, and within some ten or twelve days before the 
expiration of his patent, he applied to me as Commissioner of Patents, 
for an extension. I informed him, that inasmuch as the act of Con- 
gress prescribed the mode in which patents should be extended; re- 
quired a reasonable notice to be given to the public in sundry news- 
papers, published in those parts of the country most interested against 
such extension; and as the board had decided that 'reasonable' 
notice should be a publication of the application for extension three 
weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing, there was not time 
to give the required notice in his case; and I advised Mr. Hussey not 
to make his application, and thus lose the fee of $40 required in such 
cases, as he inevitably would, without the least prospect of succeeding 
in his application — but to petition Congress for an extension, which 
body had the power to grant it." 

Well, the "sixty days' rule," so relied on and harped upon, is here 
clearly shorn of tzvo thirds of its fair proportions. 

It is shown by the foregoing letters, that one commissioner advised 
a delay in the application, — and for apparently very sound reasons. 
On the second application to Edmund Burke, on the twentieth day of 
December, 1847, elcvc7i days before the expiration, and when the 
patent //^('/nearly run out, he was informed that the "rule " or notice 
required, is " three weeks prior to the day appointed for the hearing." 

He was again officially advised not to make the application to the 
Patent office, and lose the fee of forty dollars, but to " make the 
application to Congress, which body had the power to grant it." It 
thus appears that one Commissioner had established a " rule " of 
" thirty days," and the other a " rule " of " 21 days." 

The counsel asserts positively, that Hussey did not actually apply 
at all: only called on the Commissioner and talks with him ten days 
before the expiration, and was told of the " sixty days' rule." Now 
the Commissioner asserts just as positively \\\-aXYi\\ssey did apply for 
a?i extension, and was informed of the three zvccks notice being requisite. 
Is it probable that Commissioner Burke was also so "ignorant" as not 
to know when an application was made to him, and of the notice re- 
quired by his own rule? — The thing is too absurd for comment ; and 
we leave the counsel seated on both horns of his dilemma. 

It further appears, that both commissioners viewed the claim as a 



80 A REVIEW. 

most meritorious one, and fully entitled to an extension; Commis- 
sioner Burke so expressed himself in another part of the letter referred 
to — advising Congress to grant it. We presume the sole and only 
reason why he did not grant it, was the lack of time to give " three 
weeks notice," according to his rule; the time was too sJiort. Com- 
missioner Ellsworth did not grant the extension because the notice 
would be too long ; and thus "between the sJiort and the lo7ig of it," and 
by the new code of tnoral lazo established by this " counsel and parties 
in the State of New York," the poor patentee is to be deprived and 
defrauded of his just rights! We say deprived of his just rights ; — for 
both by the law of 1836, and the usage of the Patent Office, inventors 
as a matter of course, had extensions granted for seven years, if the 
claim was meritorious, and the reward inadequate, during the fourteen 
years, in the judgment of the Board of Extensions. As before 
remarked, these facts were established to the full and entire satisfac- 
tion of two committees of the Senate; and acting on these reports, the 
Senate passed a bill for his relief. 

Now we would ask any and all right minded men, both in and out 
of Congress, who are willing "to do unto others as they would wish to 
be done by," if it would be right or just — would it be in accordance 
with the true spirit and intentions of the law — to deny an extension on 
these grounds? 

How was the uninitiated and unskilled patentee to act under such 
circumstances, when even this " counsel leariicd in the law," and 
" familiar with the rules and regulations of the Patent Office," as he 
professes to be, is so completely at fault? He it appears only knew 
of the **sixty days' rule;" which even Congress and the Commissioners 
were ignorant of. Perhaps there will have to be a "wretched excuse 
about ignorance," in another quarter, before the "sixty days" are over 
and gone. 

We pass by the insinuations and gross charges of "pretended 
ignorance," — ''sJiani notice'' — "never intended to act in good faith,"— 
"wretched excuse about ignorance of the sixty days' rule" — "skulked 
the tribunal provided by law" — "creeps quietly and unobserved into 
the committee room," &c, &c,with the single remark, that they are 
just as undeserved as they are unbecoming and uncalled for. — ^o good 
cause needs such epithets to sustain it; and it is perhaps the very best 
evidence of a (^('/(a? cause, thus needlessly and wantonly to assail the 
reputation of another, for lack of manly argument and sound reasons, 
to support it. Surely this "counsel" could not expect us to believe 
that there was no one in the Congress of the United States so well 
qualified as himself, to judge of morals and propriety;— to say nothing 
about laiv^ and "the rules and regulations of the Patent Office? " Has 
he not common sense enough to perceive, that these denunciations 
reflect in no measured terms on the rntelligence and //^//(?r of Senators, 
who thoroughly investigated the claim and passed the Bill? 

We have shown by the testimony of both Commissioners, that they 
at least had no such "sixty days' rule." The Act of July 4, 1836. does 
not contain it, in section, clause or line; but the "rules" that did exist. 



A REVIEW. 81 

originated in the Board of Extensions; — were subject to change — were 
changed. A pamphlet of "Information " published November, 1842, 
and forwarded by Commissioner Ellsworth, "and without a penny of 
expense " to an applicant but a short time before he went out of office, 
does not contain any notice of even his "30 days' rule;" so that this so 
oft repeated "sixty days rule," had not tJicn an existence, even in the 
fertile brain of this "counsel. ' To meet the pnsc /it views and wishes 
of these very dishitcrestcd "parties," there ought to have been a "sixty days 
rule;" and it sJionld have been like the laws of the Medes and Persians, 
"which alter not, neither do they change;" — and also like the "higher 
laiv" of this modern "tyrant who published his edicts by writing them 
in small letters, and placing them so /ligh in the air that people could 
not read them, and still requiring compliance, or the consequences." 

We have it from very high authority — both sacred and profane, 
that "where no law is, there is no transgression." Now how is the 
"law and the testimony?" It was not until late in May, 1848, that 
applicants were required by " law," or by " rule," to give 60 days' 
notice; and months after Xhe petition, — by the advice of Hon. Edmund 
Burke, — was presented to Congress; — and even (?/?tr the Report was 
made in its favor by the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, 
of the Senate! 

The patent expired December 31, 1847. "^he petition was presented 
to the Senate February 7, 1848. The bill for his relief was reported 
May 15, 1848 and was both printed and " published;" noticed as apart 
of the proceedings of Congress, by the press throughout the United 
States, and every body thus notified of the application. 

The lazv requiring the 60 days' notice, was not approved and oper- 
ative, until May 27, 1848. And not to " leave a single head standing," 
in farmer phrase, the pamphlets of the Patent Office previous to this 
date, published ?io such, notice, if two honorable and able Commission- 
ers are worthy of credence. 

We hope the learned " Counsel" who was so " familiar with the rules 
and regulations of the Patent Office," will pardon us for showing him 
by the annexed notice of the Commissioner of Patents that so late as 
12 o'clock Meridian on the Third Monday in February, 1848, there 
never had be e7i a "Sixty days' rule:" and he " may know by making the 
proper enquiries at the proper places," where the original may be 
found, of which the following is a copy; and he may perchance also 
find on the files of the Patent Office pretty decided "traces" and in 
writing too, not "talks" only — for they are certainly there — of the 
reasons and arguments in favor of Hussey's right of extension. 

Patent Office, Jan'y. 21, 1848. 

On the petition of C. H. M'cCormick of Steel's Tavern, Virginia, 
praying for the extension of a patent, granted to C. H. M'Cormick 
for an improvement in Reaping Machines, for seven years from the 
expiration of said patent, which takes place on 21st day of June, I848. 

It is ordered that the said petition be heard at the Patent Office, on 
the Third Monday in February at 12 o'clock M., and all persons are 



82 A REVIEW. 

notified to appear,and show cause if any they have, why said petition 
ought not to be granted. 

Ordered also that this notice be published in the Union and 
National Intelligencer, Washington, (and several other papers) once a 
week for three successive zueeks previous to the Third Monday i?i February 
next. 

Edmund Burke, 
Commissioner of Patents. 

P. S. — Editors of the above papers will please copy and send their 
bills to the Patent Office with a paper containing this notice. 

To insinuate that all these proceedings were " secret" or" covertly" 
done, either designedly, or in fact, is a perversion of the truth, and an 
insult to Congress. 

From the foregoing evidence, the candid reader will judge what 
degree of reliance can be placed on any of the broad charges and sweep- 
ing denunciations of such a " counsel " as this. He appears to practice 
on the principle that the " end justifies the means,'" regardless alike 
of facts and figures; or, he manifests a degree of " ignorance," wholly 
inexcusable in one who undertakes to enlighten even the mechanic, 
much less the Congress of the United States. We are aware that 
advice unsolicited, is rarely appreciated; but will venture to suggest to 
this gentleman, that if his failing' proceeds from ;yc?/ " ignorance," it 
might be found profitable to resume his studies before again attempt- 
ing to practice. If he would designedly 'wapose his incorrect statements 
on Members of Congress and others, we would say to him — and from 
a longer experience with the world than he has had, — " Honesty is 
always the best policy," — whether in getting claimsthrough Congress, 
or in his intercourse with " the rest of mankind." 

As before remarked, it is brought as a grave charge against Hussey 
that he was ignorant of the "sixty days' r\.\\e," — the man confined to 
his workshop, and compelled to labor with his own hands for his daily 
bread — while this same " counsel," a resident of the City of Washington, 
and whose occupation is to prosecute or defeat claims, for a considera- 
tion, and as the case may be, is still more ignorant. 

We opine that " Othello's occupation's gone," unless he finds out a 
way to manage " a case " better than this. 

He tells us that the business was all done in the " most secret quiet 
manner:" ///rj/ did not " know that the petition to extend the patent 
was before the Committee," — did "not know that it was published, 
until divulged by accident;" — that, "the Committee, of course, when 
relieved from their labors, desire to sink the shop and obtain recrea- 
tion—and would not speak of the business," &c., &c. 

Now we would z.sV,%vhose business was it to know before invading 
the rights of others, and "investing millions of dollars" in what they 
rt'^V^ know was never invented by them? What would it avail the 
Pirate on the high seas, before a court and jury when indicted for felo- 
niously taking the property of others, to enter the " wretched excuse 
about ignorance" of the law, and allege the plea that he " was artfully 



A REVIEW. • 83 

drawn into the business," and had " invested vast sums of money" in 
his ship? And what think you, would a righteous judge probably 
answer to such pleading as this?. Your plea cannot, and ought not to 
avail you. You at least /^//t'cc^ that the property was }wt yours. You 
were not " decoyed," or " artfully drawn into " this piratical business. 
But you voluntarily made your own election to run the hazard, 
FOR THE SAKE OF GAIN. You not Only plunder the poor sailor of ship 
and cargo, but you would turn him adrift on the wide ocean, without 
chart or compass, and with only a single and frail plank, to die a lin- 
gering death. You have not a shadow of claim on the justice or 
mercy of the court! 

He thinks however, "If Hussey had cautioned them--so that they 
would have been prepared to resist the extension or avoid falling into 
the snare — the case would have been different; but his course has been 
such as to drazu them into the business [ / .'^ and it remains to be seen, 
whether, having thus drawn them in, he shall have the aid of Congress 
to fleece them." 

It certainly comes with a very bad grace from these parties to talk 
aboutyfcYr/w^. They would "fleece " the very man — the true and orig- 
inal inventor by their own showing — by whose efforts and long devo- 
tion to the cause, they are now realizing " millions of dollars." We 
trust Congress can perceive the full force of such reasoning as this, and 
the true source of the fleecing. 

We like the Teacher whcXhev in Lazu or Gospel, whose practice cor- 
responds with his precepts. Hussey aimed at no concealment; none 
was practiced, either in, or out of Congress; the evidence conclusively 
proves it; and to make such pretense, can only proceed from design. 
But how was it with this " counsel and parties in the State of New 
York?" Was Hussey "warned" or " cautioned " by you, or a pam 
phlet placed in his hands, so that he "would have been prepared " to 
refute these false allegations and assumptions? Were not these 
pamphlets "secretly" distributed to some Members just as it was sup- 
posed the bill would claim the action of the House, and carefully 
" concealed " and kept out of the way of other Members believed to be 
favorableto the petitioner, and thus forestall all opportunity to reply? 
And when advised that the Committee on Patents of the House, could 
not report at this Session, were not the pamphlets again " concealed " 
as much as possible, or sent to members during the recess, to be ready 
for the onslaught at the next session of Congress? But thanks to an 
honorable high minded Western Member, who witnessed the game, a 
copy soon found its way into other hands than it was intended for. 

it is believed such was the fact. This however is certainly known; 
that one or more of the agents employed to distribute the pamphlets, 
desired their ozvn names miglit be " concealed!' " Why beholdest thou the 
mote that is in thy brother s eye, but considerest not the beam that is 
in thine own eye? '. 

Having shown clearly, and proved, by the most reliable testimony, 
that all the charges of " trick,'' — " secrecy " — " wretched excuse about 
ignorance," " skulking,'' &c. trumpt up to defeat the extension were 



84 A REVIEW. 

entirely groundless, — not to say malicious, we will show, and prove 
also, that instead of being a " delinquent and snare-setting patentee" — 
" setting a trap for manufacturers " — or " that he had so long concealed 
his intention — to obtain an extension," &c., that Hussey was using 
every honorable effort within his means and knowledge, to get the 
Patent extended by Congress. 

Those who have ever made the trial, need not to be told of the dififi- 
culties, expenses and delays — often for a dozen years— attending the 
prosecution of private claims. No matter how meritorious they may 
be, there is nearly always delay; and often too, justice is so long post- 
poned, that the poor applicant after spending his last dollar in the 
fruitless effort for expenses, or for fees to a set of Shylock's, is forced 
to abandon his claim in despair, or death closes the scene of all his 
earthly labors and trials. If our memory serves us, there was once a 
case of a private claim, that occupied the attention of Congress for 
some tiventy-jive to thirty years ; and that claimant a widow lady too! 
It is believed she also died before the claim was adjusted. Is it indeed 
so very strange that private bills were delayed in Congress from 1848 
to 1852-3, the most exciting period in the political annals of the coun- 
try for 40 years? — and following upon the sectional strife resulting 
from the Mexican War — the admission of California into the Union, 
and the consequent agitation of that all-absorbing subject slavery, 
which appeared for a time likely to rend asunder even the Union 
itself? But "there are none so blind, as those that zvotitsee." 

The annexed letters are deemed quite sufificient to establish this 
point, though more evidence, if necessary, is at hand. 

Washington, 5th Sept., 1854. 
Obed Hussey, Esq., Baliijnore — 

My Dear Sir: I have recently learned, with surprise and indigna- 
tion, that certain spcailating liarpics who fill their coffers with the prod- 
ucts of other men's brains, and who, in your case, seek to " reap 
where they sow not," are basely and unjustly endeavoring to prevent a 
renewal of your patent for your "Reaping and Mowing Machine," 
upon the ground, [among others], that you and your agents have 
neglected to press your Claim properly before Congress. 

I have been your Agent from the time the claim was first presented 
to Congress, and kjioiv that the Charge is entirely unfounded. 

The facts according to the best of my recollection and belief, are as 
follows: Your Claim for a renewal was presented to Congress at the 
very first Session, z.{t^x you- ascertained that your application to the 
Commissioner could not be acted upon under the rules of the Patent 
Of^ce. Every paper and proof necessary to establish your right to a 
renewal of your patent, under the existing laws, was procured, and 
promptly placed with your memorial, before Congress. No further 
proof was required by the Committee on Patents, in the Senate, and 
your right to a renewal was fully established by an able and unanswer- 
able report of that Committee, accompanied by a bill for a renewal. — 
This report and bill were printed by order of the Senate, and were 



' A REVIEW. 85 

noticed as a part of the proceedings of Congress, by the press through- 
out the United States, and every body thus notified of your application. 

From that period to the present time, I do not think there has been 
a single Congress at which all proper efforts were not made to obtain 
the action of that Body. Members were not annoyed with indecent 
importunity; nor were any powerful combinations of interested indi 
viduals resorted to, \.o force your Claim upon the consideration of Con- 
gress. This was not in accordance with your taste, or your means. I 
well remember, however, that you frequently visited this City on that 
business; and that at almost every session, you either brought or sent 
to me, to- be laid before Congress, some new evidence of the triumph 
of your great invention. — These documents were faithfully laid before 
that body, or sent to the senators from Maryland for that purpose. 
On one occasion, as your agent, I addressed a somewhat extended 
communication to the Senators from Maryland, attempting to show 
the vast importance of your invention to the Agricultural interests of 
the United States, and the strong claims you had to a renewal of your 
patent, and requested them as the Representatives of your State in the 
Senate, to give their attention and influence to accomplish that end. 

At a subsequent Session, this request was repeated, to one or both 
of the Senators from that State. 

I can also state with certainty that hardly a Session of Congress 
has passed since your memorial was first presented, at which prominent 
and Scientific Agriculturists, in different parts of the Country, who 
were acquainted with the merits of your invention, have not used their 
influence with Members of Congress to obtain a renewal of your patent. 
Any pretense therefore, that your Claim has not been duly presented, 
notified to the public, and urged with all proper care and diligence 
upon the attention of Congress, I repeat is totally Jinfoimded. 

It will be a stain upon the justice of the Country, if one whom truth 
and time must rank among its greatest Benefactors, shall be stricken 
down and permitted to die in indigence by the interested and unworthy 
efforts thus made to defeat you. 

You are at liberty to use this statement in any manner you may 
desire. Very truly and respectfully, 

Your Ob't Ser'vt, 
CHA'S E. SHERMAN. 



Harewood, 9th Mo. 7. '54. 
Esteemed Fric?id, 0. Hussey : 

I duly received, and have carefully read the Pamphlet by W. N. P. 
Fitzgerald, [the attorney for a few interested parties at the North,] in 
opposition to the extension of the Patent of 1833. And in answer to 
the queries, whether the charges are true that no efforts have been 
made to procure the passage of the bill by Congress, or that they 
have been "secretly" or "covertly" made, I can state from my per- 
sonal knowledge, that they are not only untrue in fact, but entirely 
groundless. I was not previously aware, that claims cordd be " secretly " 



86 A REVIEW. 

prese?ited or prosecuted, and " secretly " acted on by the two Houses 
of Congress! 

Some years since, — even before purchasing a machine for my own 
use, I received numerous letters from individuals not only in this, but 
adjoining States, [and some of them entire strangers even by name,] 
desiring my opinion both as a farmer and machinist, in regard to their 
purchases of Reaping Machines. With this view and also for my own 
benefit, I carefully examined every machine within my reach; and the 
result was, a decided conviction that " Hussey's Reaper" was the most 
efficient, strong, and durable; and that the peculiar construction of the 
cutting apparatus, particularly of the guards, was the only true and 
efficient principle that ever had been invented for the purpose. 

Many machines were thus purchased on my recommendation; and 
all, without exception have worked well, when properly managed. 
My own machine has much more than realized my expectations; for 
several years past, doing the work of ten or a dozen scythes in the 
grass fields, doing it better, and at less than one-fourth o,f the expense. 

Knowing that an application was pending for an extension of the 
Patent, and greatly desiring to see the inventive talent and genius of our 
countrymen properly rewarded, as well as from a feeling of gratitude 
to one who has conferred so signal a benefit on the Agriculturists of 
the country at large, some three or four years since I wrote to influen- 
tial characters at Washington,' urging the extension as due to the 
Inventor, and in strict accordance with both the letter and spirit of 
the Patent Laws. From that day to the present, I have not failed 
at all proper times and places, with Members of Congress and others, 
to advocate the cause, both verbally, and with my pen. So far from 
desiring " secrecy " or " concealment," my letters were written with the 
object, and full permission given, to print and publish them. 

Acting from a conscious feeling of rectitude, and from disinterested 
motives, it is difficult to read this pamphlet without some feeling of 
indignation; and I am at a loss to say which is the most censurable, — 
the selfish motives that appear to prompt this opposition, and to take 
from another what is known, and admitted to be his right; or, the 
unscrupulous disregard of those amenities of social life — a due regard 
for the private character of others, — that should characterize the advo- 
cate and gentleman, everywhere; and which are not often seen even in 
the pettyfogging county court lawyer, who desires to pass himself off 
with his light, "brief," and before an ignorant jury, as something extra. 
If these parties cannot effect their object without thus traducing pri- 
vate character, they will not succeed in that way. It was remarked by 
a wise man, "that there was no danger from error, if truth was left 
free to combat it." I have no doubt whatever that in this case, truth 
and merit, will triumph over error and sordid motives. I shall cer- 
tainly aid them all in my power, humble and feeble as may be their 
advocate. Very respectfully, 

Edward Stabler. 

Several pages of this scurrilous pamphlet are devoted'to convey the 
idea, that there is now " a secret alliance " — a collusion between Cyrus 



A REVIEW. 87 

H. McCormick and Obed Hussey, to obtain this extension of patent, 
in order that they may "share the spoils!" It is a strange compound 
of insinuation, declamation, inconsistency and absurdity: and it is about 
as difficult to compete with the "counsel " on this, his favored field, with 
sound argument or logical reasoning, as to attempt to " bottle moon- 
shine " for future use. The charge is not sustained by a particle of 
evidence — nay, he even endeavours to vilify, if not discredit his 
own witness, C. H. McCormick, whom he drags on the witness stand. 
McCormick by his showing, is an Algcrine any how; — but if he will 
help him to capture this prize, he " shall be entitled to his gratitude ; " 
if not, he too is to be immolated on the shrine of modern Moloch. 
The learned " counsel " is very like an errant farmer boy, who was sent 
into the field to catch a cunning and incorrigible old nag; he took a 
mibbi/i oi corn in one hand, and a cudgel \\\ the other: if the nubbin 
cheated him, to be bridled, well and good; but if too cunning to be 
thus caught, then came down the cudgel. The very learned " counsel " 
certainly deserves a patent himself for his ingenious device in getting 
a witness to testify in his favor. 

This however is like all the other charges brought against Hussey; 
— not even '' founded o\\ fact," as the writers of fiction are wont to say. 
It is not proposed to enter into any defence of C. H. McCormick, or 
his claim; he is doubtless quite competent to take care of himself 
against this assault; and if no better testimony can be brought to 
invalidate it, the task will be an easy one. But it is due to him and to all 
others to state distinctly and positively that the charge is wholly gratu- 
itous and unfounded. 

But there was no occasion for this " delinquent and snare setting 
patentee " to " set a trap " at all; nor need " Congress spring the trap 
that has been set for them, i. e., the ' parties in the State of New York,' 
and so artfully concealed." Their " counsel " has effectually sprung 
it on the real trappers by his own bungling and " ignorance," and not 
on the innocent and unoffending ^^w^. We would copy entire, pages 
9, 10, II and I2, as an admirable specimen of special pleading, — the 
best we ever saw, considering, there was neither fact, testimony, or even 
tolerable circumstantial evidence to base it on, — only that it would too 
much extend our review: we will however give a very fair and full 
sample, Vvith an analysis, and the unprejudiced reader can judge for him- 
self; and also whether it is not somewhat like the patent double-edged 
razor, made to cut both ways. It was not however a very useful inven- 
tion — not like " Husseys reaper," which cuts best both ways — for while 
the operator was shaving the upper lip with one edge, the other was cut- 
ting his )iose. The counsel says: 

'' Until the present Congress, Cyrus H. McCormick, the inventor, 
or rather compiler of " McCormick's reaping machine," was opposed to 
the extension of this patent, and has been constantly before the com- 
mittee seeking the extension of his own patent; and, as he was per- 
fectly conversant with the history of the Hussey machine and with the 
profits derived from it, as a rival machine, could have furnished testi- 
mony to defeat the extension. 



88 A REVIEW. 

" Now, however, McCormick havinfr become satisfied, after sev-eral 
years' labor before Congress, that he cannot obtain an extension of his 
own patent, and finding Hussey's machine one of the principal obsta- 
cles in his way, and that Hussey's patent will be more available for the 
purposes of " black mail " than his own, has made a secret alliance with 
Hussey to share the spoils, and has prompted, in the most quiet man- 
ner, an extension of this patent. I say in the most quiet manner, 
because I am not aware that any person outside of the committee room, 
except McCormick, Hussey, and his counsel, knew that a petition to 
extend the patent was before the committee, until the bill to extend it 
was reported — and even then it was not published, so far as I have 
been able to ascertain, and those most interested were not aware of it 
until it Was divulged by accident. The committee, of course, when 
relieved from their labors, desire to " sink the shop" and obtain recre- 
ation — and would not speak of the business with which they have been 
burdened in their hours of labor, except by the merest chance. Not 
a word of testimony, on the part of the public or of individuals, was 
before the committee to the best of my knowledge, but very distin- 
guished counsel from the House of Representatives appeared before 
the committee in Hussey's favor. Under such circumstances it was of 
course clearly shown that Hussey had not been remunerated. But it 
might have been very difficult to establish that fact before the Patent 
Office, where opposing parties have a right not only to call witnesses, 
but to cross-examine. It may have been made to appear also that 
the rights of other parties would not be injuriously affected by the 
extension. It is difficult to guess what may be clearly proved where 
one party has everything his own way. No one but McCormick had 
the slightest opportunity to oppose before the committee. The case 
has been very carefully hidden from public view — and although I have 
not the means at this moment of rebutting any thing in reference to 
compensation, &c., I presume the meritorious points of the case jlid not 
cause the concealment. I do not k)iozv but that a proper case for exten- 
sion might have been made out in 1847 — but the fact that it was not 
attempted in any proper way makes me disbelieve it. And now other 
rights, in good faith, have attached; and even if the extension would 
have been proper in 1847, it is not so in 1854, But the circumstances 
indicate that it was never a proper case for extension. No opportunity 
is afforded for taking or presenting testimony, and I am therefore ' 
obliged to rely upon what is clearly within the reach of members 
of Congress. 

" I have stated that this extension is favored by Mr. McCormick, 
and that if granted it will really be for his benefit — to give him the 
control of the market, and enable him to crush all others as he has 
been for years striving to do, with a quarter of a million of dollars 
which he has made out of his compilation of other men's inventions. 
His own application for extension smells so rankly, that his name 
or interest would do any thing rather than help the case; and, there- 
fore, if he is really opposed to the extension, I shall be entitled 
to his gratitude for bringing his name into the case to defeat it. 



A REVIEW. 89 

If not, he is among the opponents of my clients, and therefore the 
proper subject of remark in this connection. 

" I was not a witness to any secret arrangement between Hussey 
and McCormick, and I will state the facts which I know in reference 
to it, and which every member of Congress may know by making 
the proper inquiries at the proper places. 

"And first. The Hussey and McCormick machines have been 
rivals ever since INIcCormick borrowed and compiled enough from 
his neighbors to make his machine of any value. The comparative 
trials of the two in Europe and America, and their concurrent use, 
prove this fact; and prove that McCormick would be, on this ground, 
the first to oppose this extension if he had not a secret interest in it. 
The two parties have always had adverse interests. 

" Secondly. If Hussey's patent be renewed, without an understand- 
ing with McCormick, McCormick's machine could not be built, sold, 
or used, without infringing Hussey's patent; and Hussey would have 
the right to enjoin him, and prevent his operations entirely — and 
recover damages, if McCormick made, sold or used them, or if any 
person claiming under him did so. So that McCormick's present 
lucrative trade at his numerous factories would be entirely cut off. 

"Thirdly. McCormick was the only one of those interested in 
harvesting machines that knew of Hussey's petition — Jie did knoiv it, 
as almost any member of the Senate committee can testify. And 
although this extension, if not for his benefit, w^ould shut up his 
factories or lay him under contributions at the pleasure of Hussey, 
he does 7wt oppose it, or if there be a sliozv of opposition, it is of that 
kind w^hich helps on the extension — the opposite of ^' damniiig with 
faint praise'' — glorifying by faint opposition, which is much more 
effective than any ^/mr/ support he could give it. He is at this time 
(after his own extension is finally thrown under the table) here pulling 
the wires to procure this. 

" Fourthly. It will be found by careful observation that all the 
stro7ig friends of McCormick's extetision have transferred their zeal to the 
extC7ision of Hussey. 

" If these circumstances are not sufficient to establish my position, 
more would be equally ineffectual — but I think they w^ill convince 
others, as they have convinced me. The conduct of McCormick- 
is to my mind inexplicable on any other hypothesis. The extension 
is intended for his benefit, and if granted would enable him to trample 
on all subsequent inventors and manufacturers, as he has for years 
been striving to do by an extension of his old patent of 1S34- — which 
is good for nothing else. With this extension it would be perfectly 
easy, without the investment of a dollar of capital, except the pittance 
which is to be paid to Hussey, to extort from subsequent inventors 
and manufacturers fifty tliousand dollars annually. Not that the inven- 
tion is worth any such sum, but it would be better for manufacturers 
to pay it, than to entirely remodel their machines. The cutters used 
at the present day are improvements upon Hussey's, not what Hussey 
invented and patented, but they embrace a single feature of his, and 
would therefore be controlled by his patent. 



90 A REVIEW. 

" I think I may safely say that the extension of this patent would 
be without a parallel in the annals of extensions. I am familiar with 
the subject of patents, but have no recollection of a single case 
of extension, where the thing patented was in extensive use, and had 
been public property for sia: years before the extension. The law 
presumes that, in fourteen years of exclusive possession, any inventor 
is properly rewarded, and an extension can never be granted under 
the spirit of our patent laws, in equal justice to other inventors, 
except in extraordinary cases. The presumptions are all against the 
patentee, who has enjoyed' fourteen years of monopoly, and cannot 
properly be set aside by ex-parte affidavits and statements, where 
the party has skulked the tribunal provided by law, and refused 
to subject his case to the scrutiny which it prescribes, but creeps 
quietly and unobserved to the committee room, with no notice 
to those whose rights he is attempting stealthily to invade. 

"Mr. Hussey is now a man advanced in years. — His character was 
long since formed, and we may easily judge from his past what he would 
be likely to do, left to the promptings of his own mind, at the present 
time. The fact that he has so long concealed his intention to obtain 
an extension, proves conclusively that he would not now ask it, unless 
he has been setting a trap for manufacturers, or has become the cat's 
paw of a more designing and grasping man; and in either case, I 
respectfully submit, that his petition should be promptly rejected and 
dismissed. — If the case had possessed commanding merit, it would at 
the proper time, have been laid before the tribunal which Congress in its 
justice, liberality, and providence, has long since established for the 
extension of patents, where the inventor has, without fault or neglect, 
failed to obtain the remuneration to which he is reasonably entitled. 
This Hussey has omitted to do, and the presumptions from this omis- 
sion and delay are irresistible." 

The learned " counsel " very gravely states, " I was not a zvitness to 
any secret arrangement between Hussey and McCormick;" yet he 
charges, and attempts to prove, without producing a single witness 
what is in itself an absolute absurdity, and by his own showing; that 
because McCormick " after years of labor before Congress, finding 
that he cannot get an extension for his worthless patent, is now at 
Washington pulling the wires, and working for Hussey;" and "has 
prompted in the most quiet manner the extension of his patent; the 
opposite of damnini^ zvitJi faint praise, glorifying by faint opposition," 
in order that he, the veritable Cyrus H. McCormick, the ^'compiler of 
McCormick's Reaping Machine, with a quarter of a million of dollars, 
which he has made out of his compilation of other men's inventions," 
the man "to trample on all subsequent inventors and manufacturers, 
as he has been for years striving to do, by an extension of his old 
patent of 1834, which is good for nothing else," may *'\Q.\y black 7naH" 
on these parties in the State of New York, out of Hussey 's patent! 
His great rival too, at the " World's Fair in London," and " the two 
parties who have always had adverse interests." 

So it would seem, the Lion does actually lie down with the Lamb, 



A REVIEW. 91 

and all is at Peace! If this idea of a "secret alliance" is not really 
and truly a "sublime conception," it is simply ridiculous. 

It may be that they Jiave been in some sort rivals in Reaping the 
golden harvest fields of the South, the East, and the fertile prairies of 
the great West; and we believe they have even crossed the broad At- 
lantic to exhibit their prowess and skill, and "astonish the natives" on 
English soil. But we never before heard of any " secret alliance," any 
conspiracy to rob others, and then " to share the spoils." 

Nor have we yet heard that any one of these " parties in the State 
of New York" represented their country at the "World's Fair in 
London;" or have added a particle to the wide spread fame and re- 
nown acquired there for American ingenuity and inventive talent, that 
swept over this continent with lightning speed, and was hailed with 
delight, and with feelings of national pride, from one end of the Union 
to the other. 

Where w^r^ these " parties in the State of New York " all this time, 
with their "valuable improvements on Hussey's patent," when the 
London Times and other kindred prints were jeering and taunting us 
with sending " tread mills " and " flying machines " to the " Exhibition 
of the Industry of all Nations?" 

W'ere they engaged in concocting this scheme to deprive an honest 
inventor of his honestly acquired and legal rights? Or were they not 
employed in adding to the aforesaid " millions " by " springing the 
trap" in the shape of ''black w^//" on a poor brother inventor and 
manufacturer, who was compelled to earn his daily bread by the sweat 
of his brow? 

If the learned " counsel " has had much practice in Courts of 
Law, he must be aware, that a " zvitness " may sometimes prove too 
much; or in attempting to prove one thing a little too strong, he may 
prove quite the opposite. As he appears to have quite a fancy to 
"cross-examine witnesses," we will bring him on the stand: this is cer- 
tainly fair, for he has given in his "testimony in open court;" and as 
this witness has completely failed to prove afty thing for " parties in the 
State of New York," perhaps he may prove something for a poor 
patentee — " who is now a man advanced in years," and who " has be- 
come the cat's-paw of a more designing and grasping man." T\\e.ge?i- 
erous delight in succouring the aged and oppressed. 

" Teach me to feel another's woe, 
And ///(/^ the fault I see; 
That itiercy I to others show, 
That mercy show to me." 

Does a Plaintiff — a poor man for instance, in an action at common law 
against a millionaire , lose his " inchoate right," if the case is in litiga- 
tion for '•' six years?" or for six times six years, and subject to all the 
glorious uncertainties of the law, by the management of cunning, or 
the neglect of lazy "counsel?" Is not the entry on the Docket or 
'' jfojirnal" prima-facie evidence that the case was neither " carefully 
concealed," nor "abandoned?" Would the learned gentleman con- 
sider it even handed justice to lose his just debt, because the clerk of 



92 A REVIEW. 

the court, by his arbitrary and changeable "rules" refused to docket 
the case, not having had either '' sixty days,'' " thirty days," or "twenty- 
one days notice" before court, and of which notice the plaintiff was 
entirely ignorant? We all kmno a ricli man does not thus lose his 
" inchoate right;" but with 3. poor man, the case may possibly be dif- 
ferent. 

If the Patent, and claim for extension have no merit, no originality, 
as you plainly intimate, and indeed assert, why oppose it, and make 
such strenuous efforts to defeat it? As counsel well versed in the law, 
and "familiar with the subject of patents " as you allege, you ^?/^/z^ 
to know that the parchment even with the signature of the Commis- 
sioner of Patents, and the "broad seal " attached, does not make it 
valid. Would not " the courts " promptly set aside all such spurio?is 
claims? 

You say, " It is found by careful observation, that all the st'Ofig 
frie?ids of McCormick's extension [meaning of course in both Houses of 
Congress] have transferred their zeal to the extension of Hussey.." 
Now admitting this to be true, a single isolated fact surrounded by a 
mass of fiction, what is the most obvious inference. Is it not strong 
presumptive evidence, that there is merit \xi the claim, and that all who 
zvill, can see it? unless we admit, but which the court cannot, that 
the members of Congress are all a set of turn-coats, and devoid of 
principle. 

Again, you say, " with this extension it would be perfectly easy, 
without the investment of a dollar of capital, except the pittance to 
be paid to Hussey, for McCormick to extort from subsequent in- 
ventors and va3in.\\ia.cXurQVS fifty tJiousa?id dollars annually." Do not the 
words subsequent inventors, twice repeated in the same paragraph, im- 
ply an antecedent, and that even you^ consider " Hussey " a previous 
inventor, and having a prior claim? True, you also state, " not that 
the invention is worth any such sum, but it would be better for the 
manufacturers to pay it.^than to entirely remodel their machines." 
Now will you please -explain to the court why, and how it is, when you 
say " no man's rights are infringed," that it is better to pay ''fifty thou- 
sa?id dollars ' annually, than to make a slight alteration — to change a 
"single feature" in their machines, and use their ozvfi inventions only? 
Why, if "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," rnust 
be told, "The cutters used at the present day, are improvements upon 
Hussey's, not what Hussey invented and patented, but they 'embody 
some of the general features' — 'embrace some of the elements' — eni- 
brace a sitigle feature of his, and would therefore be controlled by his 
patent." !! 

Ah! this looks like coming to the point — no evasion, no subter- 
fuge here; "one more question, and you may come down Sir." As 
you appear to be quite " familiar" with such subjects, will you have 
the goodness to explain to the Court, of how many " elements," 
" general features," or single features," these said " cutters," ''origi?ial 
and improved," consist of? No answer!— ^Well sir, as a witness is not 
bound by law to criminate himself, we will waive this question; you 



A REVIEW. . 93 

no doubt, like other counsel, find it much more convenient to ask, than 
to anszvcr some questions. 

You have repeatedly spoken of " black mail;" do you understand 
it to mean, paying money as an equivalentto another man, for the use 
of his invention or patent? Have your " clients," — the " principle of 
them," who are the assignees of a poor patentee, ever " sued," " en- 
joined," or " levied black mair' on others, — those who attempted, or 
made use of their " improvements upon Hussey's patent? Is not the 
true and only cause of all your opposition to Hussey's extension, the 
desire on your part to "skulk the /w/^'r tribunal," and thus avoid pay- 
ing even the most reasonable and just compensation to him, whom 
you know, and admit, to be the true and original inventor of the most 
valuable " feature" in the machine, while at the same time you unhesi- 
tatingly and unscrupulously "sue," "enjoin," and " levy black 7naH" on 
others, and without a blush, coolly pocket the proceeds? 

We think we have heard of this "counsel" before; and would 
respectfully ask him if he is not now employed by Howard & Com- 
pany, these "parties in the State of New York," in sueing, enjoiinng, 
and levying "black mail" at this present time on a manufacturer in 
New Jersey, for an alleged infringement of their " bent arm f — and to 
which they probably have about as much legitimate claim of inven- 
tive principle," as has Santa Anna, " by the grace of God," to the 
throne of the Montezumas'. 

Can the intelligent reader fail to see, and most clearly, that so far 
as the reasons, — for arguments they cannot be justly termed — which 
are here assigned, and designed by these parties to defeat this exten- 
sion, go to establish the fact, that Hussey is the original inventor of 
this most important " element," this "feature" in the guard and cut- 
ting apparatus, and so much coveted, that renders their machine a 
practical and available implement? Such is certainly the fact. And 
do they not show, impotent and lame as they are for their intended 
object, that the whole drift and intent of the nefarious scheme is to fill 
their own pockets at his, and the farmer's expense, regardless alike of 
law, and every principle of justice and fair dealing? It must be re- 
garded by every disinterested and unprejudiced tribunal, as a lawless, 
rapacious, and most unfeeling attempt to consummate an act of the 
grossest injustice. 

How does all that we have quoted, accord with what we find on 
page 7 of this singular production? That, "Inventors should be 
treated justly and even kindly, and a degree of indulgence should be 
extended to them where their rights are concerned!" — which simply 
means we suppose, if it means anything, "we want your property, 
Wright or wrong, and are determined to execute you; but will provide 
a soft silke?i cord, that will appear a little more decent and merciful." 
But the texture of the cloak thrown over to hide its nakedness is so 
flimsy and thin, and withal so poorly woven together, that it falls to 
pieces almost by its own specific gravity, — it only the more clearly 
shows its deformity: — is but " a cloak of covetousness." 

To show the just appreciation of this great invention, we have pre- 



94: A REVIEW. 

viously quoted from high and official authority, the Hon. Edmund 
Burke: and it is sustained by the concurrent testimony and opinion of 
the civilized world. From the same high authority we will quote, to 
show a propet appreciation of the rights of inventors, and of the lawless 
and unprincipled depredators on those rights. 

Patent Office Rep. 1846, page 9. 

" In connexion with the revision and amendment, of the present 
patent laws, I would remark that, in my judgment, some additions to 
the present enactments are necessary for the more effectual encour- 
agement and protection of inventors and patentees, 

" The existing laws, while professing to give to the inventor the 
exclusive enjoyment of his invention for the term of fourteen years, 
do, in fact, afford to him but very little protection. The fruits of his 
genius and his toils are constantly liable to be wrested from him by the 
unscrupulous and dishonest, who, too often countenanced by public 
opinion, are apt to regard the rights of the inventor as the fruits of a 
monopoly which it is a merit instead of a wrong to break down and 
destroy; and the more valuable the invention, the more liable is the 
patentee to this species of invasion and injury, as there is more induce- 
ment held out to its perpetration. The stealthy thief and the mid- 
night burglar are justly regarded as the pests and enemies of society, 
and are therefore seized and punished by penalties severe in propor- 
tions to the turpitude of their crimes; yet their depredations are com- 
mitted on things which are made by law the subjects of property, and 
which may be acquired by industry or by purchase. The right of the 
inventor to his invention, in the judgment of all enlightened minds, 
cannot but be viewed as far more sacred than mere things of property. 
It is a mental creation, or rather the discovery of a principle or thing 
never before known to the world, and may be, and very many inven- 
tions have been, often productive of countless blessings to the human 
family, affecting their destinies as individuals and as communities 
through all time. When the wonderful discoveries of a Watt, a Ful- 
ton, a Whitney, and an Arkwright, and the great results to individuals 
and to nations which have followed from them, are contemplated, it is 
not difficult to realize the value of the splendid gifts which science, 
through their instrumentality, has bestowed upon man, nor to estimate 
the claims which the true inventor has upon society. He may truly 
be called the pioneer of civilization, the explorer of the unknown 
world of science and art. And yet how many of those truly great 
benefactors to their race have fallen victims to ingratitude and wrong, 
and gone down to their graves in penury and sorrow. The case of 
Ely Whitney, our countryman, the inventor of the cotton gin, is but 
one among innumerable instances in which the fruits of splendid gen- 
ius have been wrested from its possessor by the unprincipled depre- 
dator upon patent rights. It is familiar to all that that great inventor, 
whose name stands out like a bright and lustrous star in the constel- 
lation of genius, was compelled to expend all the profits of his inven- 
tion in fruitless efforts to protect it from infringement, and finally died 
a victim to debt and disappointment. 



A REVIEW. 95 

" Many valuable inventions are now used in secret and kept from 
the world, on account of the impunity with which patent rights can be 
infringed ; secrecy being a better protection to the inventor than the law. 

" These reflections are indulged in with a view to awaken in the 
public mind a proper estimate of the value of the toils and labor of 
the inventor, and of his claims to full and effectual protection in the 
enjoyment of the fruits of his genius and skill, and to enforce with 
more emphasis the suggestions which I deem it my duty to submit in 
relation to such amendments of the law as may be necessary for the 
security of the rights of inventors. The principal difficulties which 
the patentee has to encounter, under the present laws, in enforcing his 
rights, arise from two circumstances: first, from the fact that the ques- 
tion of originality may be raised on every trial for infringement; and, 
secondly, the almost total inefficacy of the existing law to prevent in- 
fringement. 

" In every application, the question of the originality of the inven- 
tion is thoroughly investigated by the Patent Office; and as it is 
decided affirmatively or negatively, the patent is issued or denied. 
If the patent is granted, it is very properly (as the office cannot 
claim infallibility) deemed by the law o\\\y prima facie evidence 
of the originality of the invention, and of the right of the patentee 
to recover damages for infringement of his claim. Yet there 
should be some point at which this question should be deemed as con- 
clusively settled, and'the right of the patentee to recover made abso- 
lute, or the patent declared to be a nullity. Yet, under the existing 
laws, such is not the fact; and although4:he question of originality may 
have been decided by twenty juries, in as many different trials, it is 
just as much open to dispute in all subsequent trials. 

" This difficulty in the way of the patentee to recover for infringe- 
ments, in cases in which the invention is a very valuable one, and the 
infringer a wealthy corporation, amounts almost to an insuperable one, 
as he is kept in the law, and harassed by litigation, until the term for 
which his patent runs, expires; and he is left without adequate remu- 
neration for his invention, and sometimes made poorer than when he 
commenced the fruitless attempt to vindicate his rights by an appeal 
to the law for redress." 

Pat. Off. R. 1847, pages 7 and 9. 

" In my former reports I have recommended a change in some of 
the features of the patent law as it now exists. For the nature of 
those recommendations, and the reasons on which they are founded, 
I would respectfully refer to the annual reports of this office, for 1845 
and 1846. In my judgment the changes proposed are necessary to 
give adequate security to that valuable and meritorious class of our 
citizens engaged in inventive pursuits. As the law now is, the reme- 
dies which it affords to patentees are, in most cases, inadequate to the 
protection of their rights and the prevention of infringement upon 
them by that unscrupulous and unprincipled class of persons, who 
make it a practice willfully to depredate upon patent rights, and who, 
from the basely criminal character of the offence which they commit. 



96 A REVIEW. 

are stigmatized by the application to them of the infamous epithet of 
pirate. Certainly, adequate protection should be given to the honest 
inventor who devotes his substance and his incessant toil for the ben- 
efit of society, against the freebooters who invade without scruple his 
property, which, to him, is more sacred and invaluable, because it is 
the cherished creation of his own genius. 

" But while his exclusive property in his invention exists, it must 
be considered that the inventor has a right to demand of the Govern- 
ment, the most ample security and protection in its enjoyment. This 
security and protection he does not, under our present imperfect sys- 
tem, enjoy. On the contrary, the difficulty and expense, and the ab- 
solute impossibility, in some cases, of vindicating his rights, have ren- 
dered the present laws enacted for his protection, almost absolute 
nullities. To remedy this imperfection in the existing system, is the 
object of the amendments of the patent laws, proposed in the two 
former reports of the undersigned. 

" While the steam engine, most potent of all the creations of gen- 
ius, is daily coursing before our eyes, wafting us upon the wings of 
the wind its precious freight of human life, and its countless treasures 
of industry and commerce; while the mysterious telegraph speedsour 
thoughts with the swiftness of lightning which is its obedient aud 
trusty messenger; while magnificent manufactories stud our land, stun- 
ning but delighting us with the never-ceasing movement of their won- 
der-working machinery, it seems unnecessary to remark upon the 
incalculable value of the labors of the inventor and his claims upon 
society for protection in the enjoyment of his* just rights. And, 
sooner or later, the undersigned is confident they will be fully recog- 
nized and protected by the enlightened legislators of a great repub- 
lic, whose progress has been so much accelerated by their genius and 
enterprise." 

Patent of^ce Rep. 1849 — '50> Comm. Ewbank. 

"With respect to the modification of the patent laws, I beg leave 
to refer to the able reports of my immediate predecessor; whose views 
as to the necessity of giving further security to inventors, accorded 
with my own, and to whose forcible language on the subject I can add 
nothing. It is admitted that all legislation which has in view the se- 
curity of an exclusive right, is intended to guard the public good 
against a violation of the faith reposed in its bestowal. That, on the 
other hand, it is equally the duty of the legislature, if it deems proper 
to extend to individuals or corporations such right on certain condi- 
tions, to protect them in its enjoyment. That such in a greater or less 
degree is not the case in regard to inventors must be obvious to those 
who have been conversant with the operation of the patent laws now 
in force. It is not expected, in view of their modification, that a per- 
fection can be attained which will meet every emergency; but the 
least which should be done is to apply a remedy whenever an object 
designed by enactment, is defeated in its operation. 

"Some years of experience seem to have illustrated the inoperative 
effect of the law intended to secure the inventor in the enjoyment of 



A REVIEW. 97 

his privilege. Were all men equally capable of producing, fewer 
would be found engaged in plundering inventions which belong to 
his neighbor. Such, however, not being the case, unfortunately the 
lack of inventive talent is in many instances supplied only by the de- 
sire for gain, and ingenuity in attaining it, at the sacrifice of the real 
machinist. 

" The public mind, interested in the progress of the arts, as fos- 
tered by the establishment of this office, is now turned towards a 
remedy of the evil; and to the undersigned it seems but justice that 
the remedy should be applied. 

" Inadequacy of protection, is what is chiefly complained of — the 
violation of a right as sacred as any personal possession, without the 
remedy guaranteed against a petty larceny. It is manifestly unjust 
that the time and means of the inventor should be expended in de- 
fending that which Government accords as peculiarly his own, in 
every instance where a willful trespasser is called upon to respond in 
damages for infringement. He is thus subjected to all the horrors of 
interminable and ruinous litigation; and, if his assailants are more 
fortunate in having the means of attack than he of defence, his case 
is hopeless, and he may be likened, as once were chancery clients, to 
sheep that, having taken shelter in the hedge, come forth " piteously 
complaining," leaving their fleece upon the bush. 

" It may be contended that all other titles to property are justh' 
subject to investigation without limitation; — and that an exception in 
this instance would be a departure from the well settled principles of 
practice and law. The argument might be good, were all property 
equally the result of mental creation and equally susceptible of public 
invasion. Unlike a chattel, it can be stolen by one, or a thousand, and 
by all at the same time. Its appropriation by one interposes no ob- 
stacle to its larceny by another, and thus the inventor is subject to 
be plundered by every person who chooses to violate his right. He 
appeals to the law for redress, and the remedy he adopts proves to 
be one of self-immolation." 

The foregoing views, alike just as they are to inventors, and hon- 
orable to the intelligent and independent minds so conversant with 
the subject, must strike the reader as peculiarly applicable to this 
case: — where an inventor after unremitting toil and privation for a 
long course of years,— ►now near a quarter of a century — has com- 
pletely succeeded in perfecting, and introducing into general use one 
of the most useful and valuable improvements of this, or indeed 
of any age, and when he might now derive some advantage there- 
from in his declining years, his motives and private character are 
ruthlessly assailed, his rights infringed on, and a barefaced attempt 
made by special pleading, insinuations, and perversion of facts, to de- 
prive him of his rights altogether; and we leave it to the judgment of 
the reader to decide, whether in the language of the Hon. Edmund 
Burke, it is done " by that unscrupulous and unprincipled class of 
persons, who make it a practice wilfully to depredate upon patent 
rights, and who from the basely criminal character of the offence 

7 



90 A REVIEW. 

which they commit, are stigmatized by the application to them of the 
infamous epithet ol pirate." 

There are, however, some honest manufacturers — and we make the 
statement with both pride and pleasure — who do acknowledge Hu^sey's 
rights, without being " sued and enjoined " by paying him a very mod- 
erate fee for the use of his patent; not averaging one third, if one- 
fourth, of the charge usually made by others. 

As to shutting up other manufactories, or even these " vast estab- 
lishments," as alleged by this " counsel," the idea is just as chimerical 
and absurd as the attempt would be futile. No man of sane mind 
would for a single moment think of such a thing. Such a course 
would be diametrically opposed to an inventor's best interest. Nor 
can any one desire to interfere with tJicir " improvements upon Hus- 
sey's patent," or to prevent their realizing a "million of dollars " out 
of it; but is there even a show of reason, right, or justice, that they 
should take his patent also, without some equivalent — some return for 
the advantages it confers? We know of no Law '^Higher," or Com- 
mon, Moral, or Statute, which recognizes such a principle, or confers 
any such right. 

This learned " counsel " has clearly failed to establish his position 
hy four of his lazvs. There is yet another Law — the Christian or Divine 
Law, which is the best law of all. He " may know by making the 
proper enquiries at the proper places " what are its provisions. No 
special p/eading- can mystiiy it — no sophistry can change its meaning, 
or escape from its penalties; its enactments are of universal applica- 
tion, and as unalterable as the " everlasting Hills." As he appears 
far from being " familiar"with laws of modern date, he is perhaps much 
less conversant with those of ancient origin. We commend these 
" parties in the State of New York " — their " counsel " of course in- 
cluded, to two sections particularly, of " Acts "* passed about two thou- 
sand years ago; nor have they yet been repealed to our knowledge. 
Indeed, we may find some good "r///^.y " established more than tJiree 
thousand yQdilS ago; — such as, "Thou shalt not bear false witness 
against thy neighbor " — " Thou shalt not cov^t thy neighbor's house 
— thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor 
his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neigh- 
bor's. But to the two sections of the "Acts" passed Anno Domini 
31 and 33. 

Sec. 12. " Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the 
prophets. " 

Sec. 20. "And he saith unto them. Whose /.y this image and super- 
scription? They say unto him, 'Cesars. Then saith he unto them, 
Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesars." 

As this " counsel" has very considerately and kindly prepared a 
petition for the patentee, thinking no doubt he was too "ignorant" 
for that, as well as of the " sixty days rule," we will return the com- 
pliment. He states: 



A REVIEW, 



99 



■' His track thus being entirely covered, 
he proceeds with equal secresy to Con- 
gress with his petition, and his wretched 
excuse about ignorance of the sixty (fays' 
rule— but without any excuse for his de- 
lay till ten days before the expiration of 
his patent — it adnaitted of none — and 
prayed an extension by their extraordi- 
nary interposition. His petition r,?art'(^j' 
t/ie light shed upon it by the facts, is as 
follows:" 

" To the Honorable the United States 
Senate and House of Representatives. 

" The petition of Obed Hussey respect- 
* fully represents: 

"That your petitioner has, within the 
last six weeks, attempted secretly to ob- 
tain an extension of his patent, in viola- 
tion of law, by eluding all means of that 
examination into the facts which the law 
requires — but has been unsuccessful. He, 
therefore, prays that your honorable body 
will exercise its extraordinary legislative 
power, to aid him in this laudable under- 
taking. 

" Your petitioner would have applied 
in reasonable time to the proper tribunal, 
and submitted to the proper investiga- 
tions, but feared his case would not bear 
the light. Your honorable body, how- 
ever, can proceed iLiithout notice to the 
public, and your petitioner will thus be 
screened from impertinent investiga- 
tions." 

"Hussey's first petition to Congress 
was presented about 6 weeks after his 
conversation with the Commissioner 
above mentioned. I am not aware that 
it was known outside of the walls of the 
Capitol by any one but C. H. McCormick. 
— The committee of the Senate reported 
favorably to the applicant, but the com- 
mittee of the House did not — and no ex- 
tension was granted." 

Note — In this paragraph there is clearly 
an intended deception. The counsel 
knew perfectly well, that the Petition 
was not acted on by the Senate in 1848, 
although favorably reported on; and of 
cour. e the "Committee of the House" 
could not ■Ac'iw^ioxi it, until the bill was 
passed by the Senate at the first session 
of the present Congress. If the subse- 
quent paragraph does not prove this de- 
signed to deceive, it certainly does prove 
that "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be 
wise." 



Their petiton " read by the light shed 
upon it by the facts, is as follows:" 

To the Honorable the United States 
Senate and House of Representatives. 

The petition of W. N. P. Fitzgerald, 
counsel for parties in the State of New 
York, &c., &c. 

That your petitioners profess to have 
" invested millions of dollars*" in the 
manufacture of machines, and are now 
making "vast sums of money" by the 
sale of them. 

We know very well, and indeed have 
always known that Mr. Obed Hussey's 
invention does " embody some of the gen- 
eral features," — " embrace some of the 
elements of the patent sought to be ex- 
tended " — to be more explicit, it certain- 
ly does " embrace a single feature " in 
the " cutters " used in our machines, that 
we cannot do without; for we never 
could invent anything ourselves. 

We are also well advised that Mr. Hus- 
sey has devoted many years to perfect 
and introduce his machines into use; — 
just in time for us to make money by his in- 
vention — and although he has made but 
little by it himself, he " is now a man ad- 
vanced in years," and you know that 
such a 

" Man wants but little here below. 
Nor wants that little long; " 
and as your petitioner are young in years, 
and in this business, and greatly desire 
to "become speedily rich," they there- 
fore pray " your honorable body will ex- 
ercise its extraordinary legislative power 
to aid them in their laudable undertak- 
ing." Your petitioners would hold out 
the idea to Congress, and to the "inno- 
cent public," that it is solely and exclu- 
sively for the benefit of the Farmer and 
for the "public good" that they have 
erected these " vast establishments," and 
" have [Perhaps] invested their entire 
means." 

Again, "be it remembered," that said 
Hussey " has become the cats-paw of a 
more designing and grasping man," who 
is very adroit "in pulling the wires;" 
and also that some others have made 
large fortunes by infringing on Hussey's 
patent — and which we are striving to do, 
without paying him a single dollar as 
'black mail ;' and it would be gross injus- 
tice to your petitioners not to allow them 
the same, and an equal privilege. We 
do not like to pay any ourselves, but con- 
sider it perfectly right and fair to levy 
" black fnail" on others, who infringe on 
our "improvement on Hussey's patent." 
Our motto, as you cannot fail to perceive, 
is wolinore JHst\\\2LV\. pafriofic ; "millions 
for defence, not a cent for tribute." 



100 



A REVIEW. 



In the identical language of this counsel, we now add, " If these 
circumstances," — i. e., plain honest statement of facts, and proof, with 
the simple questions and unavoidable answers that must be given — 
*' are not sufficient to establish my [our] position, more would be 
equally ineffectual! " 

We think enough has been shown to convince every Member of 
Congre«5S — nay, every honest hearted and right minded Farmer and 
Mechanic in the country who may chance to see these pages, that 
Obed Hussey's claim is an honest and a iust one. Nor do we think 
any disinterested person can read these mo^t unprovoked and unwar- 
rantable charges against the character and claims of a worthy and 
unassuming citizen without some feeling of indignation. Have we 
really arrived at this state of " progress?" — that an honest mechanic 
of the country — one who has conferred more solid advantages on his 
fellow man at home, more fame and renown upon his country 
abroad, than all the Lobby-Lawyers that ever did, or ever will 
exist to beset the Halls of Legislation, backed too, by the assign- 
ees of another poor man's Patent — cannot apply to Congress for 
sheer justice, but his private character is aspersed, his motives im- 
pugned, and his rights sought to be trampled under foot? and by a 
few capitalists who owe their prosperity solely to the inventive 
genius and talents of this very man. It is an outrage on justice, and 
every principle of honorable and fair dealing. 

But to the sense of justice of Congress, and to public opinion, 
which rarely fails to arrive at right and just conclusions, we fearlessly 
and confidently leave the decision of the whole question. That it will 
be rightly decided, we cannot entertain a doubt. 







First American Beaper— Hussey, 1S33. 



Notary Publics Certificate 



state of miinoie, { 

County of Du Page. \ 



ss. 



I, JAY P. SMITH, a NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County and 
State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, carefully read 
by me, is a true and complete and correct copy of the pamphlets entitled 
"A Brief Narrative of the Invention of Reaping Machines;" "Hussey's Reaping 
and Mowing Machines in England," and a •' Review of the Pamphlet of 
W. N. P. Fitzgerald. In opposition to the Extension of The Patent of 
Obed Hussey," bearing the dates 1854 and 1855 respectively, on the title pages. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and NOTARIAL 
SEAL, this 19th day of March. A. D. 1897, 

JAY P. SMITH. 




MiSHAWAKA, Indiana, March 28, 1 897. 

JOHN F. Steward, Esq.. 

Chicago, Hi. 

Dear Sir: Yours of 25th inst. has been received. Edward Stabler 
was for many years a friend to whom I was indebted for many friendly acts. 
I was for 25 years attorney for Whitely, Fassler & Kelley, and was therefore 
intimately acquainted v/ith Reaping and Mowing Machines. On that account 
I assisted Edward Stabler in some patent matters in which the estate of 
Obed Hussey. was interested. Our conversations about Harvesting Machines 
were frequent and I know from himself, not only the deep friendship he had 
for Obed Hussey, but also that he was the author of the pamphlets and that 
he had assisted Mr. Hussey in many other ways. He gave me the pamphlets 
when 'they were already long out of print and rare. For that reason I would 
rather not part with them. If they shall ever be required for proof, they will 
be forthcoming, and you will know where to find them. 

Respectfully, 

R. D. O. SMITH, 



DOCUMENTS 

ON THE FILES OF THE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS OF THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Relaiing to the refusal of the Board of Extensioii to extend C. H. 
McCormick^s patent for the Reaping machine, and to the publica- 
tion, by <tuthority, that McCormick^s, Hussey''s, and Moore Sf 
HascaW s patents had expired, and become public property ; and 
showing that neither Moore 4* Hascall, nor Hussey, filed any appli- 
cation for an extensio7i of their respective patents. 

Minutes of proceedings and decision of Board of Extension on C. H. 
McCormick^s application, showing that evidence was examined, 
not EXCLUDED, and case decided on its merits, not on techni- 
calities. 

The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting; 

This is to certify, that the annexed is a true copy from the records 
of this oflBce. 

In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 

have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto 

, , affixed, this twenty sixth day of May, in the year of our 

•■ '-I Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifiysix, and of the 

independence of the United States the eightieth. 

C. MASON. 

Jn the matter of the application of C. H. McCormick for an exten 
sion of his patent for a Reaping machine. 

The Board met, agreeably to published notice, on the third Monday 
(2l8t) in March, 1848, and adjourned to Wednesday, the 23d. 

March 23d, 1848. — Board met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
James Buchanan, Secretary of State; Edmund Burke, Commissioner 
of Patents; and R. H. Gillet, Solicitor of the Treasury; and— 

Ordered, That the further hearing of this application be postponed 
to Wednesday, the 29th of March, and that tlie said McCormick b© 
directed to* furnish satisfactory testimony that the invention of iii» 
machine was prior to the invention of a similar machine by Obed 
Hussey; and that he be directed to give due notice to the said Hussey 
of the time and place of taking said testimony. 

March 2^th, 1848. — Board met agreeable to adjournment. Present, 
James Buchanan, Secretary of State; Edmund Burke, Commissioner 



2 

of Patents; andR. H . Gillel, Solicitor of llie 'l"'rcastiiy ; :\,\i\,'* /tnoiurr 
examined the evidence (uldneed in the case, (lociilt^ ihal saul paitMl 
oughi not to be extended. JAMES BUCHAMAN, 

Sect etanj of Slate 
EDMUM) RUKKC. 

(Jum'r of Patents 
H. H. CILLE'r, 

Sofrofthe Treasury. 



V^-^ 



Sworn statement of R. H. Gillet, a tneniber of Board of Extension, 
showing'' that McCorniick''s testimony was consiueued, a)id his 
application, decided on its ivjekits. 

Washing TON, 2d May, 1856. 
P. H. Watson, Esq. 

Sir: You have requested nie \o give my recollection of llie proceed- 
ings b'efore the lioard of Extension, of vvliich I v^as, as Solicitor of the 
Treasury, a member, on the petition of Cyrus H. McCormick for the 
extension of his patent for a Reaping machme. 

1 now proceed to do so, after refreshing my memory by referring to 
certified copies of the paf)ers then before the board, 'liie hearing, 
under the notice, was fixed for the 21st February, 1848. We had be- 
fore us the report of Charles G. Page, examiner, stating, among othei' 
things, that McCormick's patent included matters found in one of an 
older date issued to Obed Hussey. Mr. Hiissey filed objections to the 
extension. Mr. McCormick had filed the affidavits of several persons, 
which appeared to have been taken on llie 17th of February, 1848, 

Owing, as 1 presume, to the engagements of the Secretary of State, 
(Mr. Buchanan,) the hearing was postponed to the 23d: on which day 
the board met, and the affidavits filed by Mr. McCormick were exam- 
ined, and, being ex parte, were deemed illegal or improper. The board 
thereupon gave direction as follows: "Ordered, that the further hearing 
of this application be postponed to Wednesday, the 29!h of Marcfi, 
and that the said McCormick be directed to furnish satisfactory testi- 
mony that the invention of his machine was prior to tlie inventuni of a 
similar machine by Obed Hussey; and that he be directed to give due no- 
lice to the said Hussey of tlie time and place of taking said icsiimony." 

At the hearing on the 29th of March, testimony was before us, pur- 
porting to have been taken on the 18ih of March, in Virginia, on notice 
to Hussey, and in which it was recited that he (HusseyJ attended and 
cross-examined the witnesses. 'J'his testimony was not objected to by 
the board or Hussey, in his written aigumcni, as improper oi illegal, 
nor was il ruled out, but was considered and acted (jpnn. 

The board also had before it a written argument by Hussey — a re- 



monstrance — purporting to have been signed by a large number of 
citizens of Monroe county, New York, and a siaienient prepared at the 
Patent Office, purporting to ?ho\v the amount of McCormick's receipts 
on account of his patent, with an indefinite siatemeni of expenditures 
made by him. On this hearing the board rejecied the apphcation. 
The record of the proceedings was drawn up at the Patent Office, and 
was subsequently signed, and contains the following: 

'^March29thf 1818. — Board met agreeable to adjournment. Pre- 
sent, James Buchanan, Secretary of Slate; Edmund Burke, Commis- 
sioner of Palenis, and R. H. Gillei, Solicitor of the Treasury; and 
having examined ihe evidence adduced in the case, decide that said 
patent ought not to be extended " 

In this record, as drawn up and signed, there are two errors in dates, 
in stating that the first and second meetings were in March, instead of 
February, as appears by the memorandums on the certified envelope, 
and by other papers. 

On the final hearing the question of extension was decided upon it& 
merits, and not upon technicalities, or by throwing out testimony takea; 
on notice pursuant to the order of the board. No motion was made 
by McCormick for further time, or to correct informalities. I observe, 
by a printed docuirient, that one of my colleagues supposes McCor- 
mick's testimony was ruled out because it was informally taken. He 
has evidently confounded the testimony taken on notice with that taken 
ex parte, which was actually ruled out. I am the more certain of this,; 
from having a distinct recollection of the grounds of my own action in 
the case, and of views expressed by one of my colleagues as the ground 
of his action. 

Very respect fuliv, youis,> 

R. H. GILLET 

District of Columbia, 55; 

Ransom H. Gillet, of the city of Washington, being duly sworn, 
doth depose and say, that he truly believes that the annexed letter to 
P. H. Watson is, in all respects, just and true. 

.R. H. GILLET. . 

Sworn before me this fifth day of May, 1856. 

WM. R. WOODWARD, y. P. 



(3.) 
Sworn ^ statement of Examiner, Charles G. Page, showing thai 
McCormick is not origin .\l and first inventor of machine 
patented in 1834. 

Washington, May I2th, 1856 
Sir: At your i^equest I will proceed to state the extent of my official 
participation in the refusal to extend Cyrus H. McCormick's patent of 



lilstJuoe, 1834, for alleged improvements in Reaping and Mowing 
machines. At the time of McCormick's application for extension, i 
was chief examiner of patents, and had been for six years in charge of 
the subject of Reaping and Mowing machines. It was the practice of 
the Patent Office at that time to refer applications for extension to the 
examiner for his investigation, and report upon the novelty of the in- 
vention at the time of the grant of the patent. The question of remu- 
neratiorf, and others touching the extension, were not referred to the 
examiner; but all papers belonging to the case were examined cleri- 
cally by him prior to the action of the board. Upon examination of 
the novelty of McCormiok's invention, I found that he had been fully 
anticipated in prior patents granted to others, and reported to th^Com- 
mlssioner of Patents, as follows: 

''Patent Office, Jan. 22, 1848. 

"Sir: Incompliance with your requisition, I have examined the 
patent of Cyrus H. McCormick, dated 21st June, 1834, and found that 
ihe principal features embraced in said patent, viz: the cutting-knife 
and mode of operating it, the fingers to guide the grain and the revolv- 
ing rack for gathering the grain, were not new at the time of granting 
said letters potent. The knife, fingers and general arrangement and 
operation of the cutting apparatus were found in the Reaping machine 
Of O. Hussey, patented Dec. Slst, 1833. 

' "The revolving rack presents novelty chiefly in form, as its operation 
16 similar to the revolving frame of James Ten Eyck, patented 2d 
November, 1825. 

•'Respectfully submitted. 

"CHAS. G. ?kGE, Examiner. 
»*Hon. Edmund Burke, Corner of Patents.^'' 

The opinion held by the Patent Office at that time was, that the 
subjects of McCormick's claims differed in no substantial particulars 
from previous inventions, and that if he had applied for a patent for his 
reaper subsequent to the act of July 4, 1836, his patent could not have 
been- granted, except upon proof of priority of invention; and that 
whatever remuneration he had received was principally for inventions 
previously patented by others. 

1 have reason to believe that McCormick's case had a full and 
patient hearing at the Patent Office, and unusual indulgence from the 
Board of Extension; nor did I ever hear, during the pendency of his 
application, nor do 1 now believe, that he had not ample time and op- 
portunity for establishing his claiiHa. 

I have no reason, whatever, for changing my opinion, expressed 
officially to the Commissioner when McCormick's application for an 
extension was pending before the board, that he was not the original 
and first inventor of any material and important part of the mechanism 
of the machine described in his patent of 1834. On the contrary, I 
have abundant reason for believing that opinion to be correct, and that 



it does McCormick no injuslice, even if the patent of Hussey be [eft 
entirely out of the question, and reference is had solely lo those of 
previous date. CHAS. G. PAGE. 

To P. H. Watson, Esq., Washington, D. C. 

City and County op Washington, D. C, $s: 

On this twelfth day of May, 1856, before the subscriber, a justice of 
the peace in and for said county, personally appeared Chas. G. Page, 
and made solemn oath that the foregoing statement, signed by him, is 
true, to the best of his belief and knowledge. 

JOHN S. HOLLINGSHEAD, /. P. 



(4.) 
Extract from the act entitled '' An act in addition to the act to pro- 
mote the progress of science and useful arts. ^* Approved, March 
'3d, 1837. 

"Section 14. And be ii further enacted, That • • • • • 
and the commissioner is hereby authorized, (fcc, • • • audit 
shall also be his duty to lay before Congress, in the month of January, 
annually, a list of all patents which shall have been granted during 
the preceding year, designating, under proper heads, the subjects of 
such patents, and furnishing an alphabetical list of the patentees, with 
their places of residence; and he shall also furnish a list of all pat- 
ents WHICH shall have BECOME PUBLIC PROPERTY during tho 

same period." 



(6.) 
C. H. McCormick^s patent authoritatively declared public property. 
The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

This is to certify, that it appears from the records of this office, thai 
with the annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
tions of the Patent Office for the year eighteen hundred and forty-eight, 
there was laid before Congress a list Of all patents which had become 
PUBLIC PROPERTY dudng that year, as required by section 14 of (he 
Patent act of March 3d, 1837. 

That the said list was printed and published with said report, and 
embraced, among other patents, that granted to Cyrus H. McCormick 
an the 2l8t day of June, 1834, for an improvement in the machine for 
cutting grain of all kiuds. 

In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, 'tliis 



sixth (lay of June, in the year of oui Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred niul fifty-six, and of the independence of the United States the 
eightieth. 

C; MASON. 



(6.) 

Obed Hussey's patent authoritatively declared public property. 

The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whofn these presents sliall come, greeting: 

This is to certify, that it appears frotn the records of this office, that 
Willi the annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
lions of the Patent Office for the year eighteen hundred and forty- 
seven, there was laid before Congress a list of all patents which had 
become public property during that year, as required by section 14 
of the Paient act of March 3d, 1837. 

That ihe said list was printed and published with said report, and 
embraced, among other paienis, that granted to Obed Hussey, on the 
3l8l day of December, 1833, for a machine for cutting grain. 

In testimony whereof, I. Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
have caused the seal of the Paient Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-six, and of the independence of the United States the 
eightieth. 

C. MASON. 



(7.) 

Moore 6,^ Hascall's patent authoritatively declared public property. 

The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

This is to certify, that it appears from the records of this office, that 
with ihe annual report of the Commissioner of Patents of the transac- 
tions of ihe Patent Office for the year 1850, there was laid before Con- 
gress a list of all patents which had become public property during 
that year, as required by section 14 of the Patent act of March 3d, 1837. 

That ihe said list was printed and published with said report, and 
embraced, among other patents, that granted to H. Moore and J. Has-' 
call on the 28ih day of June, 1836, for a machine for harvesting grain. 

In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, (his 
sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-eix, and of the independence of the United States the 
eightieth. C. MASON. 



(8.) 
Obed Hussey permit Ltd his patent to expire and thereby become pub- 
lic property, without even Jiting aft application for an extension. 

The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whom these presents s[)all coine, greeting: 

This is to certify, ihiit on a Ciirelul search of the records oi ihisefnce, 
no evidence caii be /ouiul thai Obed Hussey ever niade an applica;ion 
for ihe extension of Iciiers-patent granted lo him on the 3lsl day of 
December, IS33, for a maclune for culling gram. 

In leslimony whereof, I, C'liarles Mason, Commissioner of. Patents, 
have caused the seal of ihe Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord one iliousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-six, and of the independence of \.\e United States the 
eightieth. 

C. MASON. 



(9-) 

Moore ^' Hascall suffered their patent to expire and thereby become 

public property without even filing an application for an extension. 

The United States Patent Office. 

To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

This is lo certify, that on a careful search of the records of this office, 
no evidence can be found that H. Moofe and J. Hascall ever made aa 
application for the extension of letters-patent granted to them on the 
28th day of June, 1836, for a machine for harvesting grain. 

In testimony whereof, I, Charles Mason, Commissioner of Patents, 
have caused the seal of the Patent Office to be hereunto affixed, this 
sixth dayiof June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-six, and cf the independence of the United States the 
eightieth. 

C. MASON. 



(I0-) 
A Calculation. 
C. H. McCormick filed his petition before the board, for the exten- 
sion of his patent of June 21st, 1834, on the 18th "day of January, 
1848. 

On the 29th day of March, 1848, the board decided against granting 
the extension. 

Time between the dale on which his petition was filed, and thal^on^ 
which the final decision against the extension was rendered, 2a»Vi 

DAYS. 

Time between the date (March 29, 1848,) on which the board de- 
cided against the extension, and that on which the patent expired, 
(June 2l8t, 1848,) eighty-three days. 



NOTARY PUBLIC'S CERTIFICATE. 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ 

> ss. 
County of Cook. ) 

I, William J. Lukens, a Notary Pnl)lic in and for the | County 
and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing, carefully 
read by me, is a true and complete and correct copy of the pamph- 
let entitled: "Documents on the Files of the Committee on Patents 
of the House of Representativ^es," the individual documents form- 
ing the subject matter of the pamphlet bearing dates January 22nd, 
1848, May'Srd, 18.56, May 12th, 1856, and others: 

In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and Notarial 
seal this 22nd day of October, 1900. 

W. J. Lukens, 
SEAL : Notary Public, Cook County, 111. 



